Commonwealth Information Services, Australian Government Publishing ...... involving a police officer, a solicitor and a judge who are attempting to solve the.
Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Flexibility, Technology and Academics’ Practices: Tantalising Tales and Muddy Maps
Peter G. Taylor, Lucy Lopez & Carol Quadrelli Griffith Institute for Higher Education
December 1996 96/16
Evaluations and Investigations Program Higher Education Division
Commonwealth of Australia 1996 ISBN 0 644 47256 1
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Australian Government Publishing Service. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the manager, Commonwealth Information Services, Australian Government Publishing Service, GPO Box 48, Canberra ACT 2601.
This report is funded under the Evaluations and Investigations Program of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
iii
Contents Acknowledgments
vii
Acronyms
ix
Executive Summary
xi
Part I: Findings and Recommendations
1
1. Introductory Maps Introduction Terminology: Distance, Open, Flexible The Focus on Technology Looking Beyond Open Distance Education (ODE) and Communication and Information Technology (CIT) Massification: Equity, Access and Cost Higher Education: Universities’ Purposes and Academics’ Roles What Follows
3 3 4 7 8 9 11 13
2. Views Within the Literature Perceptions, Practices and Beliefs The Issue of Reform Views on the Articulation of Open Distance Education (ODE) with Communication and Information Technology (CIT) Views on the Experiences of Academics Views on Supporting the Move The Challenges for this Report
15 16 18
3. The Project’s Conduct Key Personnel The Advisory Team Project Timescale Investigation Sites: Intentions Site Overview: Faculty of Education Site Overview: Faculty of Humanities Site Overview: School of Law Methods of Investigation Interviews Analysis of Interview Transcripts Literature Review The Symposium
33 33 33 34 35 36 38 40 42 42 43 45 45
19 25 29 30
iv
4. Views of the Academics Views of ‘Flexibility’ Rationale for ‘the Move’ Design of ‘their Move’ Outcomes of ‘the Move’ Gains Concerns Views on Technology Professional Development Supporting ‘the Move’ Looking to the Future Conclusion
47 47 48 50 52 53 55 57 58 59 60 61
5. Views of the Academic Managers Rationale for ‘the Move’ Perceptions of ‘Flexibility’ Managing ‘the Move’ Concerns about ‘the Move’ Views on Technology Looking to the Future Conclusion
63 63 65 67 69 70 72 74
6. Views of the Support Staff Views of ‘the Move’ Rationale for ‘the Move’ Design of ‘their Move’ Supporting ‘the Move’ Looking to the Future Conclusion
75 75 76 77 78 82 83
7. Overlaying the Views Looking to Critical Points Issues of Difference Issues of Reform and Staff Development Issues of Policy Conclusion
85 85 87 89 94 96
8. Creating Conditions Conducive to Flexibility Some Beliefs that Underpin our Suggestions Suggestions Creating these Contexts Policy Exploration
99 100 101 105 105 108
v
Conclusion
111
Part II: Case Studies 9. Introduction Relationship Between Cases and Part I Selection of Cases Themes Across the Cases
113 115 115 116 119
Case Studies Case Study 1: The Evolving Academic—Wendy Morgan Case Study 2: Developing an Integrated Approach to Interactive Conferencing—Darien Rossiter Case Study 3: From the Year 2000 Back—David Saunders Case Study 4: A Case for Mainstreaming Innovation—Gail Halliwell and the Audiographics Project Team Case Study 5: Lawfully sustainable—Frances McGlone Case Study 6: Crossing the Technological Divide—Michael Ryan Case Study 7: Flexibility Through Independence—Stephen Colbran
167 123
Appendixes Appendix 1: Letter to Potential Participants Appendix 2: An Example of the Feedback Synopsis and Accompanying Letter Appendix 3: Symposium Documents References
133 143 149 163 171 177 185 187 201 206
vi
vii
Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, which funded the project through the Evaluations and Investigations Program. In particular, we wish to acknowledge the unstinting support to the project provided on behalf of the Department by David McCann. The project’s conduct was a team effort. We extend here our thanks to Professor Paul Ramsden, Dr Erica McWilliam and Dr Roy Lundin who were assistant directors to the project. The assistance and support of the director, Professor Paul Ramsden, and staff of the Griffith Institute for Higher Education were also essential to the project’s conduct. The final editing of this report was undertaken by Susan Jarvis of Quest Publishing Services and the desktop publishing by Liz Wilson of Macs at Work. The assistance, cooperation and generous support of the Advisory Team, comprising Professor Alan Cumming (Queensland University of Technology) who also chaired the team meetings, Professor Diana Laurillard (Open University, United Kingdom), Professor John Bain (Griffith University), Associate Professor Gillian Whitlock (Griffith University), Ms Susan Wilson (Queensland University of Technology), Ms Lee Watts (Higher Education Council) and Mr David McCann (Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs), are also gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the cooperation and support of the staff of the Queensland University of Technology and Griffith University, who agreed to be interviewed and in some cases to offer their experiences as case studies, made the project possible. We extend our gratitude to them for their interest, generosity and professionalism.
viii
ix
Acronyms and Abbreviations BAACS
Bachelor of Arts in Australian and Comparative Studies
CAUT
Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching
CBE
Computer Based Education
CIT
Communication and Information Technology
DEETYA Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs EETR
Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee
MEd
Master of Education (course)
ODE
Open Distance Education
OLAA
Open Learning Agency of Australia
QOLN
Queensland Open Learning Network
QUT
Queensland University of Technology
UK
United Kingdom
VET
Vocational Education and Training
x
xi
Executive Summary The Investigation The project investigated the relationships between diversification in modes of delivery, use of information and communication technologies, academics’ teaching practices, and the context in which those practices are employed, in two of the three large universities in Brisbane—Griffith University and the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The project’s initial plan involved the investigation of two sites: Queensland University of Technology’s Faculty of Education (Kelvin Grove campus) and Griffith University’s Faculty of Humanities (Nathan campus). Interviews associated with the Faculty of Education led to a decision to include a third site—the School of Law within Queensland University of Technology’s Faculty of Law, which is based on the Gardens Point Campus. Here the investigation focused on the use of computer-based flexible learning practices, as distinct from the more text-based practices identified within the original two sites.
Issues of Terminology We found great uncertainty surrounding the use of terms such as ‘distance education’, ‘open learning’ and ‘flexible learning’. We use the term ‘open learning’ to refer to an educational philosophy expressed through a move away from traditional face-to-face practices, while ‘distance education’ is used to refer to a relatively traditional educational delivery system designed to meet the needs of geographically remote students. That is, ‘open learning’ alludes to an approach which places student learning, needs and choice at the centre of educational decision-making. ‘Distance education’ refers to practices which allow off-campus participation in educational programs, largely through the provision of print-based resources. The term ‘flexible’ is used to refer to practices which utilise the capacities for learner–learner and teacher–learner interaction made possible through recent developments in communication and information technology (CIT) to provide increased ‘openness’ in both on- and off-campus delivery of educational programs. In this report, we use the expression ‘flexible modes of delivery’ to capture this combination of philosophy and technology, and quite explicitly recognise that this combination frees the provision of educational programs from both geographical and time constraints.
xii
While these distinctions are useful, once we move to the use of the terms to name practices, they become less so. We suggest that the discussion of actual practices should focus on exploring their nature in terms of a set of continua involving: •
openness—from closed to open;
•
interaction—from supporting highly interactive communication to one-way communication only;
•
technology—from the extensive use of CIT to reliance on paper-based print technologies; and
•
cost—in terms of both their absolute value, and their relative value in terms of fixed (development) versus variable (implementation) components.
Viewed in terms of these continua, discussions of experiences and intentions become much less muddy.
Findings The most important finding is that flexible modes of delivery, incorporating significant elements of CIT, can be educationally defensible and professionally satisfying. The relationships between diversification in modes of delivery, use of information and communication technologies, academics’ teaching practices and the context in which those practices are employed are complex and changing. We identify the central role of attitudes and beliefs in these relationships, and the relationship of those attitudes and beliefs to personal and contextual histories. They are developed in and through experiences and, unless they are formalised and reflected upon, represent formidable barriers to change. However, they should not be seen as necessarily negative—opposing change which is exploitative, inequitable, poorly conceived and/or inflexible is absolutely appropriate. One key barrier to involvement lies in the assumed association of flexible modes of delivery with more traditional distance education practices. We know little about the impact of technologies on academics’ or students’ work or learning practices. What is obvious is that both technological utopianism and widespread scepticism exist on campuses, and these stem from the historical failure of technological interventions. For most academics, reforming their practices to take advantage of the opportunities to support high-quality learning through the use of technology involves two quite distinct foci for learning. One is learning to use the technology in pedagogically appropriate ways. The second involves developing pedagogical practices that are educationally defensible in terms of student learning. Both are difficult, but the latter poses the most significant challenge. To imagine them occurring contiguously and/or contemporaneously is naive at best. It is not sensible to imagine a process of reform that does not involve staff development, nor is it helpful to think of staff development separately from any
xiii
underlying agenda for reform. The most appropriate ways of preparing academics to take advantage of these opportunities require that higher education institutions (HEIs) and funding bodies focus their attention on the development of academics’ understandings of learning and learners. The first demands a more generic knowledge base. The latter requires academics to refine those understandings in the context of their own practices, a task that is ongoing. This investigation points to the potential of staff development that is focused on establishing and nurturing learning communities within which those knowledges can be developed while engaging with the pre-existing ideas, orientations, ways of thinking and perspectives of all participants. Within those communities, technology might usefully be explored as a means to promote learning. The issue of learning must become the central concern of academics and those who seek to influence their practices. The provision of professional development support must be located in a context that satisfies a number of conditions. •
Time is a prerequisite to fundamental change in academics’ practices.
•
Opportunities to collaborate, to engage in conversation about teaching and learning, are also a prerequisite.
•
Such conversation should focus on beliefs about teaching and learning, and the assumptions that underlie those beliefs.
Thus academics should be encouraged to experiment with various practices and technologies, but to do so as members of a professional learning community. In turn, that community should encourage the exploration of assumptions, constantly critique the status quo and value diverse perspectives. It should have as its focus the improvement of teaching and learning, with technology seen as a potentially invaluable tool in that quest. It is clear that such communities are most easily achieved in local settings—teaching teams and, in some instances, organisational elements. Policy to guide this reform should indicate the general nature of the outcome that is sought, and clearly indicate the parameters of acceptable solutions and pathways to those solutions. Policies which focus on ‘commitment to particular methods of delivery, particular means of course production [or] to particular ways of providing student support services ... become barriers to change’ (Pacey 1993: 444). Solutions are limited by the ready availability of CIT infrastructure and services to support the use of those technologies. Solutions should be studentcentred, but in educationally appropriate ways. Policies must distinguish between issues of openness and systems that might deliver modes of flexibility. Given the rapid developments in technologies and students’ needs and preferences, to settle on a fixed version of flexible modes of delivery would be to misrecognise the challenges of unmet contexts. The investigation has revealed a positive scenario in terms of the development of academics’ approaches to both flexible modes of delivery and the use of communication and information technologies. Those approaches reflect creative
xiv
use of available opportunities and resources. We also found an increasing willingness on the part of many academics to explore those opportunities. If anything, the investigation reveals challenges for academic managers to take advantage of this willingness. One critical challenge involves the disjunction between the cultural traditions of higher education and the culture that is seen as optimal in terms of supporting the reform process. Then there are issues of funding. We point to the need for ‘non-stupid optimism’ on the part of those who work in the service of new and powerful opportunities for learning.
Recommendations We offer the following guidance to those involved in the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery and to use communication and information technologies. When advocating the adoption of more flexible modes of delivery: •
advocate the development of flexible modes of delivery which are focused on learning;
•
explore the issues from the perspective of the audience; and
•
promote the development of learning communities.
When managing the adoption of more flexible modes of delivery: •
attend to values, principles and intentions, as well as strategies;
•
develop an explicit policy framework which provides a relatively secure context within which teams can develop their particular projects;
•
develop practices to recognise and reward involvement and achievement in collaboration and teaching through flexible modes of delivery; and
•
recognise the organisation’s customer status in relation to outside service providers, and assert its needs and expectations in relation to the quality of those services.
When developing more flexible modes of delivery: •
work in teams;
•
focus on quality teaching and learning;
•
see flexibility in relation to a particular project;
•
view any project as being, to some extent, open to ongoing development;
•
allow time for the exploration of alternative practices; and
•
employ technologies in the service of new and powerful opportunities for learning.
When supporting the adoption of more flexible modes of delivery: •
provide that support within collaborative settings—to teams or networks;
xv
•
focus on developing both educational rationales for practices and skills in using technology in pedagogically appropriate ways; and
•
advocate the value of technology in the service of educational ends.
Part I: Findings and Recommendations
2
3
1
Introductory Maps Introduction The project investigated the relationships between diversification in modes of delivery, use of information and communication technologies, academics’ teaching practices, and the context in which those practices are employed in two of the three large universities in Brisbane—Griffith University and the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). It was undertaken in relation to the Evaluations and Investigations Program (EIP) priority area ‘Prospects for Australian universities in the 21st Century resulting from diversification in modes of delivery and deployment of information and communication technologies’. It sought to contribute to this priority through identifying: •
outcomes of moves to adopt flexible modes of delivery, and to use information and communication technologies, for academics’ teaching practices, in the context of those practices;
•
aspects of those modes of delivery, technologies, teaching practices, and contexts which contribute to the endorsement of those modes and/or technologies by the teachers who use them; and
•
specific changes in teachers’ belief systems associated with both positive and negative experiences in the use of those modes and/or technologies.
As a result of addressing those objectives it was intended to develop: •
an understanding of the relationship between diversification in modes of delivery, use of information and communication technologies, academics’ teaching practices, and the context in which those practices are employed;
•
a series of case studies of creative and effective adoption of flexible modes of delivery and use of information and communication technologies in teaching; and
•
a series of recommendations for higher education institutions and funding bodies concerning the most appropriate ways to prepare academics to take advantage of these opportunities.
Most research and discussion of ‘diversification in modes of delivery and deployment of information and communication technologies’ has focused on the narrower issues of courseware design and student response. The recent reports of the Senate Employment, Education and Training References (EETR) Committee (1995) reflect this focus, while at the same time advocating ‘the implementation of open learning across the schools, VET [Vocational Education and Training] and higher education sectors’ (Part 2: Recommendation No. 1).
4
In the context of such advocacy, this investigation sought to explore the impact on academics’ work practices (and the belief systems that underlie those practices) of the move to diversify modes of delivery and deploy communication and information technologies. It is based on three assumptions: 1.
that it is through academics’ practices that some version of ‘flexible/open learning’ will be delivered to students;
2.
that there are good reasons for seeking to understand the issue of continuity between current and more flexible practices; and
3.
and that there is a need to explore the derivation of those flexible practices in the context of individuals’ biographies and actual work contexts.
We do not offer a foolproof map for those embarking on this journey. What we offer are insights into the multiplicity of perspectives, and the consequences of that multiplicity within particular contexts. We hope to contribute to a broader appreciation of that multiplicity as both a strength and a weakness, as universities are developing responses to expectations of increasing use of communication and information technologies. These issues ultimately must be addressed in local, idiosyncratic contexts.
Terminology: Distance, Open, Flexible While the issue of terminology cannot be ignored, it is not easily mapped, given the slippage between the terms. Are we talking about ‘distance education’, ‘open learning’ or ‘flexible learning’ when we are referring to ‘flexible modes of delivery’? And why did we focus on ‘modes of delivery’? The answer to the second question is rather easy. The Evaluations and Investigations Program (EIP) priority area in terms of the funding application was: ‘Prospects for Australian universities in the 21st century resulting from diversification in modes of delivery and deployment of information and communication technologies’. We adapted the latter part of that wording. The first question is less easily rationalised. Indeed, it seems to have generated its own publication niche. The terms ‘distance education’ and ‘open learning’ would appear to have a longer educational history than ‘flexible learning’. Their use has generated much debate. Greville Rumble (1989: 35), in a much quoted article, identified fifteen criteria of ‘openness’ related to access, place and pace of study, means, structure of the program in terms of content and assessment and support services. He developed a number of conclusions, including the view that ‘there is no such thing as an open-learning system ... that is separate from contiguous or distance education systems’, and ‘many systems which describe themselves as ‘open learning systems’ are in fact remarkably closed when measured against the criteria for openness’.
There is a general acceptance that the term ‘open learning’ refers to an educational philosophy expressed through a move away from traditional face-to-face practices
5
in terms of criteria like those identified by Rumble, while distance education is an educational delivery system designed to meet the needs of geographically remote students. That is, ‘open’ is a reference to an approach—‘the objectives and character of the educational process’, while ‘distance’ refers to ‘the means by which education is achieved’—the strategies related to issues of delivery (Rumble 1989: 30). Of course, such distinctions are of little use once the terms are used to name particular practices. In use, they appear open to colonisation, and that use appears to be somewhat faddish in the literature (and in the advertisements for courses of study). It is clearly unfashionable at the moment to label practices with the term ‘distance’—it conjures images of Cobb & Co: romantic, but not functional. The use of the term ‘open’ to signal an approach to education is well illustrated in the report of the Senate Employment, Education and Training References (EETR) Committee (1995). In his introduction to Part 2 of that report (1995: 4), Senator Dr John Tierney (a former academic) wrote: To an extent, open learning is symbolic of an emerging new order in education and training. We can take it to ‘stand for’ all those features of flexibility, efficiency, effectiveness, service, national interest and so on which characterise the present debate... The Committee cannot emphasise too strongly its view that open learning contains the potential for a paradigm shift in the way we provide education and training to meet the educational requirements of the future.
The Committee did not see the open learning philosophy as necessarily limited to provision of educational services to geographically remote learners—hence the reference to a ‘paradigm shift in the way we provide education and training’. Part of the appeal of this new paradigm lies with its potential to make participation easier. Many aspects of open learning make it easier for students to achieve balance among their commitments. In addition to ‘openness’ in relation to place (where study takes place) and time (at what time the student can turn to study), open learning implies openness of entry into courses. Those who have the capacity to complete a course should not be restricted by artificial barriers such as quotas, for example. (Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee 1995: 10)
The Committee, in keeping with the view of Rumble (1989), sees open learning as applying equally to both on- and off-campus participation in education and training courses, and recommends ‘the implementation of open learning across the schools, VET and higher education sectors’ (Part 2: Recommendation No. 1).
6
Enter the term ‘flexible’, which functions to ameliorate concerns that ‘current discussions of open learning ... seem to concentrate on the ‘open’ [well illustrated in the above quote from the Senate EETR Report] and leave the ‘learning’ in the background’ (Boot and Hodgson 1987: 5). Van den Brande (1993: 1) uses the term ‘flexible and distance learning’, but indicates that the epithet ‘flexible’ refers to ‘adaptation to the individual needs and learning modes and providing full interactive facilities with tutors or other learners’. Here the image is technological, with a garnish of educational principles. The earlier point remains—the term has no fixed meaning. However, it appears to be used in ways consistent with the philosophy of ‘open learning’, and to imply a delivery system that utilises communication and information technology (CIT) to provide interactivity facilities. In essence, then, a disciplined distinction between these terms is achievable. We use the term ‘open learning’ to refer to an educational philosophy expressed through a move away from traditional face-to-face practices, while ‘distance education’ is used to refer to a relatively traditional educational delivery system designed to meet the needs of geographically remote students. That is, ‘open learning’ alludes to an approach which places student learning, needs and choice at the centre of educational decision-making. ‘Distance education’ refers to practices which allow off-campus participation in educational programs, largely through the provision of print-based resources. The term ‘flexible’ is used to refer to practices which utilise the capacities for learner–learner and teacher–learner interaction made possible through recent developments in communication and information technology to provide increased ‘openness’ in both on- and off-campus delivery of educational programs. What is also clear is that this convergence offers the possibility to significantly increase opportunities for access to courses. In this report, we use the expression ‘flexible modes of delivery’ to capture this combination of philosophy and technology, and quite explicitly recognise that this combination frees the provision of educational programs from both geographical and time constraints. While these distinctions are useful, once we move to the use of the terms to name practices they become less so. As a result, any discussion that uses these terms can lead to the activation of particular prejudices, particularly in terms of open distance education (ODE) practices. Thus, rather than focus on trying to define these terms, the discussion of actual practices could focus on exploring their nature in terms of a set of continua involving: •
openness—from closed to open;
•
interaction—from supporting highly interactive communication to one-way communication only;
•
technology—from the extensive use of CIT to reliance on paper-based print technologies; and
•
cost—in terms of both their absolute value, and their relative value in terms of fixed (development) versus variable (implementation) components.
7
Of course, each continuum can itself be considered in terms of sub-issues, as illustrated in the cost continuum. The point is that a focus on issues such as these has the potential to move any discussion beyond matters of prejudice to matters of practice.
The Focus on Technology To talk of costs invites a move to focus on matters of efficiency, and the prevailing assumption that this necessarily involves increased use of technology. All tertiary institutions—whether they see themselves as being open and distance institutions or not—are grappling with the challenge of information technology in relation to the very core of the academic enterprise: teaching and learning, research and scholarship. (Holt and Thompson 1995: 47)
The reports of the Senate Senate Employment, Education and Training References (EETR) Committee (1995) highlight the increased community expectations of diversification in modes of delivery, resulting in part from the deployment of communication and information technologies. These expectations are partly due to a ‘convergence’ of more traditional forms of delivery, along the lines discussed by Lundin (1993: 12): It is now becoming common for the whole field of ODE [open distance education] and CIT to be discussed in terms of ‘flexible distributed learning’. That is, the external–internal, on-campus–off-campus and other categorisation of learners based on modes of delivery are being abandoned because they no longer represent what is being practised. All forms of delivery, including face-to-face, are now recognised as valid options to meet identified needs of learners.
What Lundin’s comments also suggest is that convergence can involve more than just ODE and CIT—it can also include face-to-face teaching. On the other hand, most discussions of the use of CIT, including those of Lundin and the Senate EETR Committee, ignore this possibility and focus instead on its articulation with ODE, an articulation which is seen as having the potential to revolutionise the delivery of education. This pressure for articulation is captured by Don McNeil (1990: 2), who provides a succinct picture of the integration of technology into the fabric of modern universities through the following generalisations: • The globalisation of information is increasing at a fast pace as technology
continues to diminish constraints of time and distance. • The need for a skilled work force is escalating rapidly as technology transforms
the functions of the individual worker and as competition with other nations grows.
8
[What this point overlooks is that we have always had a ‘skilled workforce’, it’s just that some skills are no longer valued. The skills that are now needed are those of working with and through CIT.] • Improving productivity holds the key to the future economic success of the
[nation]. [This statement assumes that the use of CIT will increase productivity. Recent comments by Paul Attewell (1996) identify a number of grounds for questioning this assumption. It also assumes that we have definition for educational productivity.] • Economic development is becoming increasingly dependent upon the
educational system, forcing institutions, states, and nations to look at the ‘economics of knowledge’. • The educational system is undergoing technological changes that challenge
current assumptions about how people are taught, when they are taught, where they are taught, and the length of time they need to master subject matter.
This set of issues suggests a multitude of pressures which are likely to severely challenge many aspects of traditional university teaching and learning practices. Collectively, they represent what some authors refer to as a ‘technological imperative’ (Holt and Thompson 1995). However, what is not implied is that these ‘pressures’ converge in any coherent sense, or that there might be one optimum response to them.
Looking Beyond Open Distance Education (ODE) and Communication and Information Technology (CIT) While this report is focused on issues related to academics’ reactions to the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery and the associated articulation of ODE and CIT, it is important to locate those reactions and that articulation within a bigger picture. One compelling reason for this was advanced by Richard Caladine (1993: 9), who warns that the integration of flexible modes of delivery and CIT may become ‘driven by technological determinists rather than educators’ unless theoretical issues are introduced. Indeed, without such a focus, it becomes difficult to critically reflect on the influence of flexible modes of delivery or ODE or CIT on the nature and purpose of higher education, or on the contributions of academics to those purposes. The exploration of coherence requires a move beyond both the rhetorical and McNeil’s dot points. The work of Morrison (1995) is useful here, providing an extended introduction to the ‘bigger picture’ in his presentation of ‘an educational options map through which to navigate the broad relationships between social change and educational policy at a global level’ (1995: 188). He identifies two significant discontinuities between what he terms ‘the inherited model’ and the ‘new design’.
9
The first discontinuity concerns the location of higher education in relation to the major issues and processes in most societies. Traditionally, higher education was provided only to an elite, and consumed a small proportion of public resources. More recent changes have seen higher education offered as a right rather than as a privilege. Indeed, given the central role that education is seen to hold in terms of national economic wellbeing, it could be seen as an obligation for all citizens. The resulting demand on resource provision by central governments has been great. Morrison’s claim is that ‘[t]he late 19th century higher education model is increasingly unable to cope with the axial role higher education plays in most societies’ (1995: 189). The second, and related, discontinuity focuses on how higher education adapts to social and economic change. In the past, adaptation has focused on curricular change—‘changing what is legitimately taught’ (1995: 190). Morrison’s argument is that there is a need for adaptation to focus on issues of how rather than what— ‘how to access learning, how to organize research, how to manage institutions and systems, how to link with technology, how to cope with social and ethical issues, how to distribute opportunity, and how to develop human resources’ (1995: 190). His argument is that higher education, given its allocated axial role in relation to those changes, must address ‘how issues’ if it is to provide an appropriate response to the process dynamics of social and economic change. Morrison’s work is of relevance because it locates discussion of ODE and CIT within a broader context, and suggests that our thinking about those issues itself must recognise that a ‘smooth evolutionary transition’ to the widespread use of more flexible modes of delivery is not likely. Indeed, his work suggests it may be far more productive to conceptualise the process of evolution in terms of dislocations, dilemmas and uncertainties rather than projections from ‘what is’ to ‘what is needed’. It certainly invites us to consider these issues within a broad framework of social and economic change. What aspects of social and economic change are significant to this project? While many other issues could be discussed here, there is a need for selectivity. Therefore this section will focus on two aspects: •
the massification of higher education and the related issues of equity, access and cost; and
•
the evolving nature and purposes of higher education and universities, and the related roles of academics.
Massification: Equity, Access and Cost National policies, particularly in advanced Western nations, have tended to emphasise the need for increased levels of participation in post-compulsory education (Hartley 1995; Morrison 1995), particularly in higher education. The rationale for reducing barriers to access and participation has reflected both human-capital theory (the economic wellbeing of the nation depends on the
10
development of a highly skilled workforce) and equity principles (the extension of mass education to the post-compulsory sectors). The marketplace logic of humancapital theory has allowed government officials to argue for the expansion of higher education on both economic and equity grounds. Thus, in an age of shrinking public-sector expenditure, they have had a politically attractive rationale for increased, but targeted, educational expenditure. The issue of targeting, however, has involved more than just the consideration of the nature of the education which a government wishes to support. Terri Seddon (1994: 78) suggests that this question has, in the main, been resolved in favour of vocationally and economically relevant education. She also makes the point that the preference for vocational education can be seen as ‘a major challenge to liberal meritocracy’. As such, it also reflects the commitment to principles of equity and access. Targeting has also invited consideration of how that education is to be accessed, in turn raising questions about the place and role of flexible modes of delivery in reducing barriers to access and participation. Morrison (1995: 206–7) suggests that the benchmarks by which new educational designs will be evaluated are participation, success and cost. The related goals for participation are: •
increased participation—referring to ‘the absolute numbers of people who have access to or participate in learning’;
•
broadened participation—which ‘entails opening up access opportunities for people who are geographically remote from centres of learning or culturally and economically distant from the mainstream of society and opportunity’;
•
successful participation—here he argues the need to pay attention to more than just opportunity to participate, for a non-discriminatory and nonrepressive form of participation; and
•
targeted participation—‘a focused approach to increasing the participation of selected groups in learning, or achieving a broader range of participation in and achievement of specific learning goals’.
Morrison indicates that the issue of cost is essentially one of affordability, although Bates (1995: 17) indicates that it can be seen in terms of both expenditures and opportunities: What cannot be justified is continuing with a system of teaching which, while it may have served an elite well in the past, is very expensive and ineffective, in that it does not facilitate the vast majority of people to learn and think creatively and independently throughout their lives.
Thus to fail to utilise CIT resources as a means to assure increased access represents, in terms of a nation’s human-capital development, an opportunity loss.
11
What Lundin (1993) and Laurillard (1993), and in more qualified ways Bates (1995) and Morrison (1995), make clear is that the ‘front-end’ cost of the use of CIT, seen primarily by them in terms of what Caladine (1993: 10) describes as ‘second generation multimedia distance education’, creates a tremendous burden for both staff and institutions, and requires large numbers of students to make that investment cost effective. Lundin and Laurillard see this cost pressure as requiring a collaborative approach at the system level—reflected in the establishment of the Open Learning Agency of Australia (OLAA). On the other hand, increased competition between providers is encouraging higher education institutions (HEIs) to utilise open learning modes as a way to ‘grow the market’ (Morrison 1995). The notion here is of developing, within the rhetoric of concerns about equity and social justice issues, ways of offering educational programs to ‘clients’ who have traditionally been unequally able to access them—those who for reasons of geographic remoteness or work or care responsibilities were unable to participate in face-to-face teaching on a regular (weekly) basis. The recent upsurge of interest in workplace skills training has also been seen as a ‘growth market’ for higher education institutions programs. What emerges from this reading of the literature is a strong sense of the convergence of the social agendas of access and equity and of mass higher education, the national treasury agenda of fiscally responsible affordability and the use of technology-based flexible modes of delivery. Thus, rather than the ‘technological imperative’ suggested by Holt and Thompson (1995), there appears to be a sense of ‘technological inevitability’ associated with the need to support mass higher education.
Higher Education: Universities’ Purposes and Academics’ Roles The second impact of social and economic change involves a related proliferation in the purposes of higher education, and the roles that academics are expected to play. This impact is related to the move to extend access. It is also related to the relocation of higher education from the periphery towards the centre of political decision-making. Morrison (1995: 189–91) argues that the move to provide higher education to all rather than restrict it to an elite has had the effect of transferring responsibility for significant aspects of the governance of those institutions from essentially private boards (the Senates) to the public—the state. This trend has been observed in the United Kingdom, with some concern about its implications for universities: [I]t remains the fact that in nearly all countries universities are suffering something of an identity crisis under the pressures of rapid increases in student numbers, falling unit costs, increasing government control, and some evidence of rising public disenchantment. (Shattock 1995: 157)
12
On the other hand, and from an historical perspective, government intervention is seen as essential to the development of technical education: ‘In no country did individual capitalist enterprise produce a collective strategy for training without state intervention’ (Green 1995: 134). While not attempting to address the same issues as Morrison, David Hartley (1995) provides quite a different reading of the current policy framework. In particular, while agreeing that governments face ‘fiscal overload’ and rising expectations of access to higher education, he points to a tension between their capacity to exercise control over education (particularly its ‘quality’) and ‘the emerging culture of post-modernism’ (1995: 420). The latter leads to increasing pressure for ‘choice, flexibility and diversity’ (1995: 421), while the former focuses on issues of modernity—predictability, standardisation and quantification. Clearly, the discussion of the new educational order, as represented by the Senate EETR Committee and Morrison, is most consistent with governmental policy directed towards efficiency and rationality—that is, with a modernist perspective. What Shattock and Hartley are pointing to is an element of discontinuity additional to those nominated by Morrison—cultural discontinuity. They are also referring to the associated sense of institutional ‘identity crisis’. That crisis is also reflected in the lives of academics. Ernest Boyer’s (1992) work can be read as an overview of the multiple roles/identities available to academics when he writes of the scholarship of discovery, the scholarship of integration, the scholarship of application, and the scholarship of teaching, and of the distinctions between these. His intention is to advocate a recognition and valuing of the scholarship of teaching, which he suggests is undervalued by comparison with the other forms of scholarship in the American system. Our point is that these can be seen (and experienced) as culturally distinct ways of identifying with the academic role. The issue of the relationship between the identity crises of higher education and its academics is of significance here. A linkage between them has been explored recently by Jon Nixon (1996), who argues that ‘the reconstruction of [academics’] professional identity is a precondition of the restructuring of higher education’ (1996: 5). He refers to the tension between the roles of teacher and researcher, and locates those tensions within a context which invites occupants of both roles to focus on issues of marketplace competition—winning students and grants respectively. In addition he points to the need for academics to anchor their identity, in terms of their reputation and influence, in communities outside of their institution (1996: 8). He also points to the differential status (and employment opportunities and rewards) attached to these roles,with rewards going to those who are tenured and research-focused. Based on the size of universities and the multitude of roles that are available, he speaks of the possibility of ‘refuges for anonymity’ (1996: 9), as well as visibility within these institutions.
13
Nixon’s work is of particular significance to this report because it is based on interviews with academics, and focuses in part on establishing ‘the institutional conditions necessary for [academics’] learning to flourish’ (1996: 13). He identified (1996: 13–14) four such conditions for academics’ learning: 1.
the importance of collegiality and the need for mutually supportive relationships with colleagues;
2.
the importance of having a clear sense of where their institution was going; a sense of its priorities and long-term commitments;
3.
the need for structures to support their development as teachers and researchers; and
4.
the need to resolve tensions between their teaching responsibilities and research commitments.
While the identification of these ‘conditions’ is useful, what the achievement of the last of these would appear to represent is a return to the certainty of a modernist institution. Thus what Nixon risks is a search for a map to return to the past rather than arguing for an ongoing exploration of the challenges posed by his own analysis. Consistent with the present investigation and report, Nixon’s work places a priority on the perspective of academics. He argues that: University teachers bring important insights to bear on their own practice and these insights constitute an important perspective on the nature of learning and the institutional conditions necessary for learning to flourish. (Nixon 1996: 9)
This work, as indicated in the three assumptions stated in the opening section, sees additional value in paying attention to academics’ perspectives. Additionally, this report contributes to a move to locate academics ‘in the picture’ of the move to adopt flexible modes of delivery through the use of ODE and CIT.
What Follows The report is developed in two parts. Part I provides a more general discussion, while Part II provides a set of case studies based on the perceptions of particular individuals. In the remainder of Part I: •
Chapter 2 provides a review of some of the relevant literature.
•
Chapter 3 provides an overview of the procedures through which this project was conducted.
•
Chapters 4, 5 and 6 present interpretations of the views of academics, academic managers and support staff (respectively) to the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery and to use CIT.
14
•
Chapter 7 provides a discussion of those interpretations which seeks both to compare and contrast the views of our respondent groups and aspects of the literature discussed in Chapter 2. Its principal purpose is to provide a synthesis of viewpoints on which the recommendations provided in Chapter 8 are based.
•
Chapter 8 provides a set of suggestions intended to help create conditions conducive to the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery and use communication and information technologies in teaching and learning within higher education.
Before moving to those chapters it is important to signal some of the limitations of this report—limitations which reflect its origins. It does not provide a complete map of the terrain. It provides maps of particular practices in particular contexts. Thus, in Chapters 4 through 6, the discussion of flexibility and technology is of actual rather than ideal practices. This is also true of the case studies shared in Part II. Nor does it represent an attempt to overview of all the relevant literature. Finally, it does not draw on the views of students. It is focused on academics’ responses to moves towards more flexible practices. The intended audience includes academic managers, academics and support staff who are contemplating or engaged in such a move. That is, it is directed to individuals who are engaged by or in the process of change in the teaching and learning practices of higher education. The approach reflects a fundamental view that the role of a document such as this is to offer advice, not prescriptions, as the latter undermine the development and exercise of professional judgment in relation to quite specific circumstances. Therefore, rather than seeking to identify problems and recommend solutions, the discussion is focused on the creation of conditions which might support this move.
15
2
Views Within the Literature Before moving to share relevant aspects of the perceptions of respondents to our investigation, it is important to provide an overview of relevant findings from previous research. While the views presented here had very little influence on the actual investigation, they provide a broader framework from which to consider our interpretations and conclusions. The views from the literature have been grouped into five categories, which relate to the following issues: •
Perceptions, practices and beliefs—this section explores the reasons for our focus on respondents’ perceptions and beliefs.
•
The issue of reform—here views on educational reform are introduced, primarily drawing on literature based on experiences in the schooling sector.
•
Views on the articulation of ODE with CIT—this category draws on the work of three authors: − Roy Lundin (1993), who reviewed international ‘best practice’ in relation to non-traditional modes of delivery in higher education using state-ofthe-art technologies; − Diana Laurillard (1993), who developed a framework for the effective use of educational technology based on recent developments in the understanding of student learning and the use of CIT; and − Richard Caladine (1993), who reviewed the literature on non-traditional modes of delivery in higher education using state-of-the-art technologies.
•
Views on the experiences of academics—a presentation of summaries of five research studies into academics’ experiences of the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery and use CIT, and a brief review of the implications of those studies for this work.
•
Views on supporting the move—here a set of recommendations for both supporting the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery, and for advocating that move based on the work of Don Olcott and Stephen Wright (1995), is presented.
Having addressed these issues, the final section revisits the objectives and intended outcomes of this investigation, as stated in the opening section of Chapter 1, and identifies a set of challenges for this report.
16
Perceptions, Practices and Beliefs Why were we interested in perceptions and beliefs? Surely these only represent personal opinions? Because this investigation was premised on the importance of the perceptions and beliefs of participants, we begin by indicating our rationale for this approach. The adoption of technology within higher education faces three obstacles: attitudinal, technical and structural. Of these, attitudinal issues ‘are far more important than structural and technological obstacles in influencing the use of technology in higher education’ (McNeil 1990: 2). The relationship of attitudes and beliefs to change is therefore fundamental to this investigation. Beliefs are also fundamental to practices. The last few years have witnessed a realization that research on teacher thinking will not provide us with adequate understandings of teacher behaviors, and that the study of beliefs might provide a more promising approach to understand teacher behaviors. (Hashweh 1996: 47)
The design of this investigation was consistent with this view. That is, we set out to investigate the beliefs that academics hold about their practices, and the interaction between those beliefs, their practices and their views on flexible modes of delivery and technology. In our interviews, we asked respondents to share their views on particular issues. As a result, the investigation data consists primarily of individuals’ perceptions which, in turn, reflect their experiences. The overviews of the interview data expressed those perceptions as ‘beliefs’, and respondents were invited to review those statements and make any changes that they felt more accurately represented their views. Our investigation involved a deliberate conversation with respondents. The initial statements of their perceptions were analysed to identify the associated and underlying (and more enduring) beliefs. Those statements of beliefs, expressed in the more interpretative overviews of the interview, were then shared with respondents, who were invited to affirm or modify those interpretations. Thus the investigative process sought individuals’ perceptions of their experiences, and then attempted to identify the beliefs associated with those perceptions. The design was also based on a view of ‘teacher thinking’ which emerged from constructivism. Constructivism suggests that learning is both an individual and a social process, and is determined primarily by what we (implicitly and explicitly) know and how we feel about what we know. Both the constructivist perspective, represented by Hollingsworth (1989), and the professional development literature, represented by work such as Bromme and Tillema (1995), discuss ‘conception’ in
17
terms of the interaction between prior understandings, understood as beliefs, and ‘new’ information. This interaction is understood primarily as a cognitive activity, which in turn can give rise to learning characterised as a series of cognitive restructurings in which the belief system undergoes change. Research on conceptual and belief change has found a strong resistance to change. This research also suggests that change occurs only when individuals ‘become dissatisfied with their existing conceptions [and/or beliefs], as well as find new concepts intelligible, plausible, and fruitful’ (Stofflett 1994: 787). However, what Stofflett also found is that, while those conditions for conceptual change were important, it was the actual teaching experiences of her subjects which determined whether those changes in conceptions/beliefs were evidenced in their teaching practices. Thus her work suggests that ‘operationalisation’ of ‘new’ beliefs is dependent on the existence of appropriate contexts for their enactment in practice. This finding is consistent with that of Tillema (1995), who reports a study into changing the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers which was based on three ‘training models’: •
concept-based training, which involved a focus on presentation of the new knowledge;
•
concept-based/diagnostic training, which involved the provision to the trainers of diagnostic knowledge on the learners’ prior knowledge and beliefs; and
•
experience-based training, which involved discussions and peer-interactions stimulated by case studies (1995: 294).
The study concluded that: the knowledge structures of professionals are very difficult to change by mere presentation of information. Conceptual change, and training as a means to achieve it, needs to engage the pre-existing ideas, orientations, ways of thinking and perspectives of professional teachers; otherwise the hegemony of those knowledge structures will remain unchallenged. (Tillema 1995: 312)
The clear message is that support for changes in practices needs to address the belief systems underlying those practices, and to facilitate the exploration of assumptions about the beliefs that might underlie preferred practices. This investigation also takes up the challenge of doing educative, not simply educational, research (Gitlin 1990). It involves a reciprocal approach in which the research participants are themselves potential beneficiaries of the study. As such, it is consistent with the work of Prawat (1991; 1992), who also calls for a focus on teachers’ beliefs as an educative and empowering strategy. He (1992: 354) calls for the exploration of beliefs which may get in the way of the adoption of more appropriate practices. He uses the metaphor of ‘conversation’ to represent the process interaction between beliefs and practices, but suggests (1991) two
18
distinct contexts for those conversations—conversations with self, and conversations with settings—and maintains that each conversation can have epistemological and political dimensions. Collectively, this matrix represents different perspectives on the issue of empowerment—that is, different views on the appropriate focus for activities which are to empower teachers/academics. While this investigation has not sought to be framed by Prawat’s distinctions, the interview process was conversational, respondents were provided with overviews of our interpretations, and we generated a forum—the Symposium (see Appendix 3) for continuing that conversation. Thus the investigation focused on academics’ beliefs about their practices, and was conducted in ways which were intended to provide educative opportunities for conversations about those beliefs and the contexts within which they understood and enacted them. In Chapter 4 we share our understandings of academics’ experiences of moves to adopt flexible modes of delivery and to use CIT in the contexts of both work/task and personal systems of beliefs. In Chapters 5 and 6 we share our understandings of the experiences of academic managers and support staff, respectively, of those moves.
The Issue of Reform It is clear that the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery is a move to reform the delivery of higher education. We should therefore scrutinise the notion of reform. Discussions such as the Senate Employment, Education and Training References (EETR) Committee reports (1995), Morrison (1995), Laurillard (1993) and Lundin (1993) assume the intention to reform—to develop delivery systems which better respond to the challenges of mass participation, globalisation of information access, changing workplace demands and national economic requirements. In such a context, it seems appropriate to examine briefly some of the literature on educational reform, particularly literature which focuses on the roles and reactions of teachers. That literature tends to look primarily at teachers within the schooling sector, but the messages also appear to have relevance to academics. The current focus of reform in higher education appears to reflect the belief that sector-wide reform is achievable through a combination of general policy statements and funding support, and targeted funding for ‘light house projects’ and investigations (like this one). This is essentially a ‘top down’ approach to reform. Historical studies, largely based on experience in the schooling sector, show that ‘top down’ attempts to achieve educational reform have failed, and suggest that they will continue to do so until they ‘confront the cultural and pedagogical traditions and beliefs that underlie current practices and organizational arrangements’ (Goodman 1995: 2). Goodman’s work points to the largely unexamined influence of traditions and belief systems as sources of resistance to reform.
19
Some literature invites a questioning of reform in terms of its focus, namely whether the focus is limited to issues of ‘delivery’, or whether the focus extends to more fundamental issues concerning the nature of education (Goodman 1995). As indicated in Chapter 1, Morrison (1995) clearly has a broader agenda in mind, but his focus on ‘how issues’ can be seen to invite a focus on delivery. Goodman’s message is that reform which ignores the more fundamental issues is unlikely to succeed, and even if it were to succeed, would be unlikely to provide an adequate response to the sorts of challenges (noted in Chapter 1) that education is facing. If there is a consensus about educational reform, particularly at the schooling level as represented in the work of Acquarelli and Mumme (1996), Cohen (1995), Darling-Hammond (1993), Elmore (1996), Goodman (1995) and Prawat (1996), then it would invite a focus on two central issues. The first, identified by Goodman (1995), is the need to address core issues. The second is that, if reform is to adequately address those issues, it must be based on the development of ‘learning communities’. That is, the actual process of reform must engage academics in local communities of discourse about their educational practices. Clearly it would be beneficial to involve multiple perspectives—academics, academic managers and support staff—in those communities. Whether these two issues can be adequately addressed within a sector and with individuals experiencing an identity crisis, as discussed in Chapter 1, remains uncertain. The fact that there is such an identity crisis suggests that core issues are being challenged. Whether that challenge can be reframed as an opportunity is still to be ascertained. This literature suggests that there is little reason for optimism, but that there is increasing understanding of how this might be achieved. That issue will be explored in Chapter 7.
Views on the Articulation of Open Distance Education (ODE) with Communication and Information Technology (CIT) Three works appear to have particular relevance to this investigation. Roy Lundin was commissioned by the Department of Employment, Education and Training and the National Board of Employment, Education and Training to analyse ‘overseas experience in non-traditional modes of delivery in higher education, including those using state-of-the-art technologies’ (Lundin 1993: vii), in order to determine the elements of ‘best practice’ within that experience, and to provide recommendations to guide the development of Australian policies and decisions. His report is complemented by that of Richard Caladine (1993), which provides a literature review focused on the actual technologies used and experiences related to the use of those technologies. Their work, together with that of Diana Laurillard (1993), provides a context for the discussion of issues related to the articulation of ODE and CIT, particularly as they are associated with the moves to more flexible modes of delivery.
20
Lundin (1993): Best Practice Given his concern with ‘best practice’ in overseas experiences, Lundin (1993) adopts a system-level, rather than academic-level, perspective. He summarises (1993: 7–12), in part, the pressures for the articulation of CIT with ODE in higher education as including needs related to: •
economic issues;
•
equity and social justice issues;
•
provision of skills training in the workplace;
•
professional updating;
•
unmet demand (for education and training);
•
revenue generation; and
•
improved quality (of education and training).
Caladine (1993: 4) indicates the significance of the issue of needs ‘as a primary force in the provision of technology-delivered higher education’. Thus the rationale for the articulation of CIT with ODE appears to be based on an exploration of needs rather than educational opportunities or principles. In keeping with this prioritisation, Lundin’s first element of ‘best practice’ (1993: 26) is: ‘The project/system is established and designed to meet a real need.’ This does not mean that educational issues are ignored, just that they are seen as in the service of particular needs. Thus Lundin argues (1993: 13–16) that: The use of ODE and CIT is at least as good, and in some instances better than face-to-face programs in terms of both student satisfaction and achievement as well as staff perceptions. Methods based on ODE and CIT can be effectively applied to every aspect of every subject in any curriculum given the appropriate design, media mix and learner support services. The effectiveness of ODE and CIT programs is directly related to the learning design of the programs in terms of using the appropriate learning strategies and mix of delivery mechanisms. The designs must: • cater for all students’ needs; • accommodate the requirements of the subject matter; • take account of the teacher’s/lecturer’s choices and expertise; and • ensure the feasibility of reaching students where they are at no ‘additional’ cost
per person.
It is clear that Lundin’s comments and recommendations influenced the design of the OLAA, which was established in 1993.
21
Several other issues emerge through Lundin’s work. While he initially acknowledges the role of face-to-face teaching, his conclusions (listed above) make it clear that he sees no essential need for teaching of this type. That is, he moves to a model of higher education which is essentially a ‘distance’ model. Those conclusions also indicate that the success of his model depends on significant investment in the design of the programs (see above), on the offering of these programs in a variety of formats (1993: 16), and on the provision of ‘local community support services’ (1993: 17). Thus his model requires that considerable attention be given to matters of infrastructure and educational design. These issues are explored in much greater detail in the work of Laurillard (1993). Laurillard (1993): Rethinking University Teaching The work of Diana Laurillard (1993), titled Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology, provides a linkage between developments in the understanding of student learning and the use of CIT. Her strategy is to explore thinking about new ways of teaching and the introduction of CIT in terms of developing understandings of students’ approaches to learning. She suggests that the focus for reform should be on the development of organisational infrastructures which facilitate good teaching, and develops a ‘blueprint’ for this infrastructure in her concluding chapter. It is instructive to briefly review the five key assumptions that underlie her blueprint for establishing an effective organisational infrastructure. First, ‘quality is best established through organisational infrastructure and collaboration’ (1993: 224). It is only through collaboration, rather than competition, that high-quality multimedia teaching resources will be developed. She suggests that collaboration between institutions ‘is more efficient in terms of staff time, allows criterion-referenced selection by an inter-institutional disciplinebased review panel, and integrates effort, expertise and experience in a difficult new area’ (1993: 225). Interestingly, she argues that quality assurance mechanisms have always been in place in academe because ‘it has always operated on the principle of individual responsibility for the standard of work’ (1993: 224). Unfortunately the potential tension between the traditions of individual academic responsibility and the need for organisational and individual collaboration, rather than competition, are not addressed by Laurillard. This report will return to that issue in Chapters 6 and 7. Second, ‘[t]he organisational infrastructure must be cyclical to ensure improvement’ (1993: 225). Here Laurillard alludes to the notion of a learning organisation, addressing in particular the need for ‘setting up mechanisms that are capable of monitoring, learning and changing’ (1993: 225). She discusses
22
monitoring and reflection as meta-level, or higher level, functions focused on the way the lower level carries out its tasks. The notion that these activities should be located on different functional levels implies that these levels might be replicated in an organisational hierarchy. Third, ‘[i]mplementation must address the context of teaching and learning’ (1993: 226). Here she calls for the integration of technology with all other aspects of a student’s course. To make that integration possible, she suggests that ‘teachers’ attitudes, other course teaching, scheduling, logistics, administration, briefing and de-briefing, technical and academic support, and student assessment, must all be conducive to enabling students to use the new technology to the full’ (1993: 226). Without this level of commitment, the new technology will fail. On the other hand, she does not address the level of agreement on intentions and strategies that such a commitment requires. Indeed, her comments can be read as indicating the very fragile nature of the educational use of these new technologies. Fourth, ‘[d]esign must address the entire learning process’ (1993: 226). Laurillard identifies the activities necessary to complete the learning process (1993: 97–105), and later (1993: 176) summarises the degree to which particular forms of technology address the key aspects of that learning process. This assumption points to the need to include (and support) as many aspects of the learning process as possible in and through the design of all technology-based teaching and learning resources. Finally, ‘[a]cademic knowledge is distinct from experiential knowledge’ (1993: 227). Here Laurillard looks to the epistemological status of the teaching and learning process. She points out that academic knowledge has an integrative, second-order character, and deals with descriptions rather than experiences of the world. The challenge for technologically mediated learning is to move beyond ‘a fragmented, informational view of knowledge, and an action-oriented approach to education’ (1993: 227) towards reflection on experience and knowledge of descriptions. Collectively, Laurillard’s assumptions present a set of minimum conditions for effective teaching through technology. Specifically, she is suggesting that academics’ practices must be focused on: •
the collaborative use of expertise;
•
continuous improvement in the development and implementation of effective teaching with multimedia;
•
a commitment to the seamless use of technology to support student learning;
•
supporting all aspects of learning through technology; and
•
focusing educational activities on developing in students an integrated knowledge of descriptions and a capacity to reflect on experiences.
23
It is clear that the underlying discipline-based expertise of academics has to be augmented by a sophisticated understanding of student learning, including the necessary epistemological clarity about the nature of the task of learning. Beyond that, Laurillard’s work assumes a distinction between the tasks of teaching and of instructional design, given that it is based on a model of the design and development of teaching and learning resources within the Open University (United Kingdom). A related implication is that there is a need for all whose expertise is collaboratively contributing to the design, development and implementation of these resources to share those understandings, and commitments to the educational uses of CIT. While Laurillard focuses on the articulation of CIT with understandings of learning, her underlying concern is with the organisational infrastructure which both creates a context for that articulation, and maps the significant points of articulation. One is left with a feeling that her ‘map’ represents a new ‘organisational technology’, with its own language and logic. It remains unclear what changes in academics’ understandings, commitments, practices and/or beliefs are necessitated by this new organisational technology, or whether such changes are sufficient for professionally satisfying employment. Caladine (1993): Literature Review Caladine’s document addresses several issues of significance to this report: issues related to the theoretical background of technology and distance education; and acceptance and uptake by students and staff. Caladine indicates that only ‘a small percentage’ of the literature he reviewed dealt with theoretical matters. The majority dealt with ‘the technology of delivery and educational outcomes’ (1993: 7), and did so in ways biased towards ‘success stories’ while avoiding the discussion of shortcomings or failures (1993: 4). He notes a concern ‘that if the system [of ODE] is driven by technological determinists rather than educators, the learners may become the victims of the process rather than its beneficiaries’ (1993: 9). The main point he makes in relation to these matters is that the articulation of CIT with ODE ‘poses previously unencountered problems in pedagogy and andragogy’ (1993: 7). The first problem is termed ‘transactional distance’—the psychological distance between learner and teacher and the impact of technology-delivered distance education on this space resulting from the need for dialogue between teacher and learner, and from the impact of the design of the course structure. While dialogue is determined to some extent by the nature of the subject matter and the actual design of the subject, ‘one of the most important determining factors is the medium of communication’. Terry Evans and Daryl Nation (1992) make a related point—that, on the basis of the impact on students’ use of space and time to participate in open/distance programs, ODE practices ‘do not eliminate the problems of distance between teachers and learners but create their own’ (1992: 9). While they are commenting on the impact of open learning practices on students who are geographically distant from their teachers, it is clear that the adoption of distance
24
education materials and methods for on-campus programs, as advocated by Lundin (1993) and others (Senate Employment, Education and Training References (EETR) Committee 1995), also creates new problems. In particular, the adoption of open learning strategies for on-campus programs requires the imposition of an artificial ‘transactional distance’ between teachers and on-campus learners. The discussion of ‘transactional distances’ tends to focus on the effects on students. What may be overlooked are the related effects on academics. It is interesting to note that one of the few publications that investigated academics’ experiences of face-to-face, distance and ‘mixed mode’ teaching found that it preferred face-to-face teaching because it provided ‘extensive opportunities for interpersonal interaction’ (Taylor and White 1991: 20). This suggests that most academics have a negative reaction to increases in ‘transactional distance’ and that, given Taylor and White’s comments on students’ reactions, academics may in fact be more sensitive to this issue than their students. Course structures also vary in their degree of flexibility. Designs that include inflexible elements or elements that decrease the opportunity for dialogue tend to increase the ‘transactional distance’. For example, those that include pre-recorded ‘broadcast’ technologies allow little opportunity for dialogue or opportunity to respond to an individual learner’s needs. (The same can be said of large-group lectures.) The more interactive telecommunication technologies can help to reduce the transactional distance. Caladine points to the significance of the choice of technology in determining the ‘learner friendliness’ of particular CIT and ODE articulations. Drawing on the literature, he notes three generations of ODE. The first is ‘correspondence teaching’, characterised by the use of a single medium—text—and the postal service as a means of delivery. This remains a central mode of ODE delivery. The next generation involved ‘multimedia distance education’—of which the Open University (United Kingdom) is one of the best-known exponents. Typically this involves the use of text resources supplemented by interaction with tutors, either in face-to-face settings or via telecommunication technologies. He refers to this approach as an ‘industrial model’ (1993: 10) of distance education, alluding to the high fixed costs involved in producing the teaching/learning resources, and relatively low variable costs associated with supplying those resources to any single student. As a result of this ratio, there is significant pressure to maximise student enrolment in any subject offering. The third generation involves ‘interactive multimedia distance education’ (1993: 10). Here the emphasis is on the use of CIT to facilitate interaction, and as a medium for information delivery. This approach ‘allows courses to be custom designed for relatively small numbers of students’ (1993: 10). Fleisher (1995: 19) makes a similar observation on the evolution of ODE: ‘Until recently we used postage stamps to access knowledge. Now we exchange information and knowledge with the help of faxes, computers and other forms of electronic technology.’ These comments point to the increasing speed of information transfer interaction. What Fleisher doesn’t discuss—perhaps because of his focus on educational
25
broadcasting—is the relatively high ‘customisability’ of both ends of his continuum compared with the potential inflexibility of his second-generation medium of broadcasting. The point here is that the issue of ‘transactional distance’ is a multidimensional one. A related point is that ODE also has a variety of forms, and that some forms—particularly those of the third generation—may be perceived more positively by academics than the ‘earlier’ generations, which they are more likely to have experienced as students and teachers. Thus we need to explore understanding of ODE in ways which acknowledge its multiplicity. Later in his report, Caladine notes that ‘[a]cceptance and uptake [by students and staff] was not commented on in depth in the literature reviewed’ (1993: 24). That silence was one of the principal stimuli for the investigation that gave rise to the present report. However, he notes (1993: 24) three points in relation to this issue. •
Staff generally are amenable to changes in teaching strategies to accommodate new modes of delivery, where appropriate development and support are in place.
•
Student acceptance of alternative modes of delivery appears to exhibit some proportionality to the level of interactivity and the degree of presence of a human face.
•
Where students have experienced both live—local and distance—electronic modes of delivery, their preference is marginally favoured towards the traditional, live–local mode.
The questions that his report did not answer concern the nature and ‘placement’ of ‘appropriate development and support’ for academic staff. These are issues which this report will address.
Views on the Experiences of Academics While Caladine (1993: 7) notes that the literature tends to focus on ‘the technology of delivery and educational outcomes’, there are some reports of investigations into the experiences of academics. The move towards flexible approaches to teaching and learning in a medium-size (2000 students) tertiary institute in England was examined over a period of three years by Mike Willmot and Monica McLean (1994). They note that flexible learning was initially promoted in this context ‘as an opportunity to encourage learner autonomy and responsibility’ (1994: 99). However, they observe that the
26
concern for flexibility was quickly associated with ‘the economic and political imperatives to improve efficiency’ (1994: 100) by management. They developed this theme to conclude that: [f]rom the management’s point of view ... in an era of financial cuts and demand for growth, flexible learning has been seen as a way of meeting the educational needs of an increased number of students with a limited budget; while, simultaneously, promoting the educational ideal of student learning autonomy. (Willmot and McLean 1994: 101)
While these may be the intentions of management, Willmot and McLean found that academics were suspicious that flexible learning was being promoted for economic rather than educational reasons (1994: 102). They were not opposed to flexible learning, just interpretations of it which focused on cost, rather than educational, effectiveness. In particular, they expressed reservations about the ideal of learner autonomy, expressing ‘doubts about students’ ability to work independently’ (1994: 102), and suggesting that ‘encouraging students to become self-motivated is not a cheap option’ (1994: 103). The degree of consistency between their three groups of informants—managers, academics and students—was also commented on. Willmot and McLean (1994) found, not surprisingly, that ‘each group has its own interests and concerns, which, at times, overlap, but at others, diverge’ (1994: 99). They found that students’ and academics’ perceptions tended to be very similar (1994: 104). Both groups agreed that, if flexible approaches are to be successfully adopted, then they must provide for student–teacher interaction, and that ‘teachers need to take the responsibility for deciding on the appropriate level and type of guidance’ (1994: 104). That is, the move towards student autonomy had to be carefully supported by student–teacher interaction. The teacher has a very important role in monitoring students’ preparedness and/or capacity to accept responsibility for their own learning. An earlier study of the instructional design activities of eleven university faculty members who were utilising audiographic conferencing technology in their distance education teaching for two terms was reported by Linda Wolcott (1993). All were experienced or trained in teaching at a distance and had reputations of being successful classroom teachers. Wolcott collected data through the use of semi-structured interviews, observation and document analysis. She identified planning processes which ‘took the form of time-consuming, front-end activity rather than an ongoing one’ (1993: 28); these processes resulted in the ‘packaging of the course into an extensive syllabus’ (1993: 28). Further, the planning process focused on the selection and sequencing of content—‘methodology was secondary’ (1993: 28). Thus ‘the instructional design of the course was driven by a preoccupation with what to teach’ (1993: 29), rather than with how it could or
27
should be taught. As a result of the amount of time and effort devoted to the selection and sequencing of content, and its codification in a written ‘syllabus’, these academics ‘felt locked in to following the syllabus and, consequently, less free to be flexible or spontaneous’ (1993: 31). In her discussion of these findings, Wolcott (1993) noted that this focus on content meant that these academics spent little planning time considering issues such as ‘student characteristics, the context in which the instruction would take place, optimal instructional strategies, [or] the intended learning outcomes’ (1993: 32). In relation to the issue of instruction, she noted that, in talking about their planning, they ‘voiced little consideration for the medium of delivery and its potential to affect the course design and the dynamics of instruction’ (1993: 33). She suggested several explanations for this, including: the perception [often reinforced by the program administrators] that classroom instruction and distance instruction could and ought to be comparable in design, content, and implementation ... Additionally, faculty were conditioned by logistics and the technical limitations of the system, as well as by a prevalent ‘folklore’ about system failures, to rely on instructional techniques that were both familiar and within their control. (Wolcott 1993: 33)
Changes in the working lives of six academics who moved from teaching a Master’s degree in a traditional face-to-face tutorial format to one in which they also taught the same program in a distance mode were explored by Rita Johnston and Kathryn Challis (1994). They found that ‘the key difference between the two programmes was ... the amount of social contact experienced by the two groups’ (1994: 67). The traditional program involved students in meeting for a full day each week while the distance mode required no face-to-face meetings at all. As a result, ‘all tutors saw their relationship with the distance learning students as more structured and remote and identified potential problems arising from this’ (1994: 68). They interpreted their interview discussions as indicating that most felt less satisfied with their distance tutoring role. On the other hand, these academics also noted favourably an increased level of peer interaction associated with the production of written units. Overall, there was an increased administrative and preparatory workload, with the result that: the traditional academic work hierarchy of research, teaching, and administration was being altered, with the combination of teaching and associated administration being more dominant with distance learning programmes. (Johnston and Challis 1994: 70)
In terms of content ‘there was unanimous agreement amongst tutors that the amount and quality of information given through the distance learning units exceeded that given through the face to face seminars’ (Johnston and Challis 1994: 68). In particular, these academics noted the better structure and clearer logical progression of the discussion when it was presented in written form.
28
Further, the distance students received the whole course without needing to attend every session, and thus had both a complete and permanent record of the content. The academics also indicated that the need to develop written notes had led to the sharing with students of more detailed and up-to-date information (1994: 69). A number of broader concerns related to work practices were raised by Johnston and Challis (1994), in the context that the acknowledgment by these academics of the value of the distance mode in raising the community profile of the university. One concern related to the ambiguous status of the written materials prepared for the distance mode. Would they be recognised as original works of scholarship, who would own the copyright, and would they be recognised as a research or teaching activity? The move to distance teaching also required the academics to adopt more flexible working hours, including evening and weekend work. The invisibility of these ‘abnormal’ working hours meant that the university might not recognise or value this work. There was also a concern that the changing patterns of teacher work and student participation associated with distance education ‘might undermine the whole tradition of a university as a group of scholars discovering knowledge by a process of discussion and interaction’ (1994: 72). Related to this was a concern that distance learning tended to focus on knowledge acquisition and ignore the opportunity for social growth associated with the participation in ‘a group of scholars’. A two-year longitudinal study of flexible learning systems at a South Australian TAFE campus was reported by Judi Baron, Dianne Thiele and Ernst Hintz (1995). Their report draws on staff and student perceptions shared as responses to interview and questionnaire questions. They found ‘a gradual increase in acceptance of the advantages of a more flexible system’ (1995: 1). Those advantages included increased progression rates and independence for learners, and increased cooperation between teachers and support staff. Like Willmot and McLean (1994), they found that the issue of learner independence was viewed ambivalently, with concern over students’ capacities for independence. They called for greater attention to issues of student support, particularly for students under 20 years of age. One aspect of this support was ‘overwhelming feedback from students that they would like to see more introductory lectures and/or tutorials within the flexible learning environment’ (1995: 32). This view was ‘emphatically agreed with’ by many staff, who also expressed a preference for ‘giving students the opportunity to choose between the options [of flexible or more traditional teaching] as it suits them’ (1995: 33). Baron, Thiele and Hintz noted ‘a perceived loss of rapport ... with the traditional student and teacher relationship’ (1995: 29). There is a sense that the list of ‘adjustments the [teaching] staff had to make’ (1995: 24) in learning to become flexible are largely associated with a change in their role, from being authorities in a relatively narrow sense, to being resourceful facilitators of learning in courses of study. The report calls for ‘ongoing staff development’ to fit the ideal of the flexible worker and lifelong learner (1995: 44). It is interesting to note that describing the professional development needs in these terms mirrors the argument of Prawat (1992: 389), who argues that teachers need to be given the
29
same support for their professional learning as they are expected to provide for their students. In the age of flexible practices and lifelong learning, this might lead to an ambivalent response if management confuses ends with means. A useful overview of what they term as ‘disincentives’ to academics’ involvement in distance education in the United States is provided by Don Olcott and Stephen Wright (1995). Their review identifies issues which appear equally relevant to involvement in flexible modes of delivery. They identify two key areas of concern. The first involves the need for academic mission and pedagogical values to ‘become more flexible without compromising the integrity of [academics’] instructional roles’ (1995: 6). The second involves issues of ‘inadequate compensation, training, and incentive structures’ (1995: 7). Given their concern with disincentives, they focus their discussion on the latter, and develop ‘an institutional support structure that can assist higher education institutions in meeting these needs by appropriately balancing the application of technologies and the development of human resources’ (1995: 5). Their main point is that the move to flexible modes of delivery needs to be accompanied by changes in the management of human resources, particularly in the areas of promotion and tenure. Collectively, these studies tell us that the move to implement more flexible modes of delivery and use CIT is resulting in considerable changes in the roles of academics—changes which require the development of new as well as existing skills. Also required is adjustment in organisational support for academics. In addition, the studies point to changing expectations of academics, and the potential for increasing discontinuities between the expectations held of academics by their peers, managers and students. What they also tell us is that academics find the process of change stressful, and that organisational and interpersonal issues may accentuate that stress. They suggest that the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery and use CIT has broad implications which spill beyond teacher–student interactions into areas such as employment conditions and the nature and role of universities. Indeed, the move, as the Senate Employment, Education and Training References (EETR) Committee (1995) reports also illustrate, has implications for all stakeholders, and for many institutional practices.
Views on Supporting the Move A useful overview of the issues of relevance to support is provided by Olcott and Wright (1995: 12), although it is within the context of a discussion of distance education. They list nine practical steps to support academic involvement in distance education, adapted here to refer to involvement in ‘flexible’ education. • Define the scope of [flexible] education for meeting the extended mission of
the institution. • Establish a policy task force to define the applicability of [flexible] teaching
towards promotion and tenure.
30 • Delineate a faculty leadership role in [flexible] education based on the faculty
participation description [provided in their article]. • Establish training, release-time, faculty assignment, and compensation models
with departmental chairpersons and with deans. • Develop a discipline-based research agenda for faculty teaching via [CIT]. • Integrate a marketing plan that showcases the faculty, the academic unit, the
college, and service by these groups to ... students via telecommunications. • Disseminate faculty and student evaluation data to key stakeholders in
[flexible] education. • Create an institutional awards program to recognise outstanding extended
education faculty who teach via technology. • Support faculty involvement at regional and national [flexible] education
meetings.
Olcott and Wright (1995: 12–14) also provide useful advice on advocacy within institutions. Again adapting that advice to this context, their work suggests: •
emphasising the advantages of flexible modes of delivery rather than the technology when communicating with academics;
•
linking the advantages of CIT with human resource and staff development issues;
•
focusing advocacy on heads of school and deans;
•
engaging in activities and roles that are valued by academics and the mainstream academic culture to enhance your credibility;
•
marketing the academics as well as the programs;
•
creating comprehensive staff development plans to promote the adoption of flexible modes of delivery;
•
disseminating flexible learning research, publications and modes to academic management; and
•
having patience.
These issues will be explored again in Chapter 8 in the light of the views expressed by respondents during this investigation.
The Challenges for this Report As indicated in the introduction to Chapter 1, this investigation was intended to develop: •
an understanding of the relationship between diversification in modes of delivery, use of information and communication technologies, academics’ teaching practices, and the context in which those practices are employed;
31
•
a series of case studies of creative and effective adoption of flexible modes of delivery and use of information and communication technologies in teaching; and
•
a series of recommendations for higher education institutions and funding bodies concerning the most appropriate ways to prepare academics to take advantage of these opportunities.
This brief literature review, conducted after the completion of the interview phases of the investigation (as discussed in Chapter 3), identifies a number of challenges which those understandings and recommendations should address. They include: •
the need to conceptualise the process of evolution of academics’ practices in terms of dislocations, dilemmas and uncertainties rather than projections from ‘what is’ to ‘what is needed’;
•
the need to develop ‘new traditions’ of academic practice which focus on multiple realities and multiple roles so that academics can be both collaborative and competitive in situationally sensitive ways;
•
the need for academics to develop their understanding of student learning, and to explore their assumptions about the interaction between students’ approaches to learning in particular, rather than more general, modes of delivery;
•
the need to help academics to think globally and to act locally, allowing them to locate their work pressures within the broad context of social and economic change, and to act ethically and creatively within their local context;
•
the need for academics to locate and employ technology in the interests of their professional obligations and satisfaction, including contributing to highquality learning; and
•
the need to explore multiple ways of providing appropriate development opportunities and support mechanisms to promote transformational learning for academics.
What emerges is a more complex rendering of those earlier intentions, a rendering that encourages a search for strategies which respond to complexity and which, in responding to it, allows for creative and professionally rewarding outcomes. The remainder of this report shares aspects of that search and its outcomes. If there are simple solutions to be found, we have not yet found them.
32
33
3
The Project’s Conduct Key Personnel The project was hosted by the Griffith Institute for Higher Education (GIHE) of Griffith University (GU) and directed by Dr Peter G. Taylor (GIHE), with Dr Erica McWilliam and Dr Roy Lundin of Queensland University of Technology and Professor Paul Ramsden, also of GIHE, acting as assistant directors. Under Peter Taylor’s leadership, this group developed the funding proposal. It met to discuss particular aspects of the project—in particular, to plan the symposium and to initiate the drafting of recommendations. The project team comprised Peter Taylor, Carol Quadrelli and Lucy Lopez (also referred to in this report as Lucy Ho). All three worked within, and were provided with additional secretarial and office support by Griffith Institute for Higher Education (GIHE). Peter Taylor directed the team, developing the time frames within which tasks were completed, writing the overviews of the interview data which were subsequently provided to the respondents whose interviews they were based on, and overviewing and advising the work of Carol Quadrelli and Lucy Lopez who, as senior research assistants, were responsible for most of the fieldwork and preliminary analysis. Carol Quadrelli was responsible for work in the areas of preliminary analysis and literature reviewing, while Lucy Lopez was responsible for all interviewing and related issues, including the preparation of the case studies. Carol also administered advertising of and registration for the symposium. Two audio-typists were employed on a casual basis to undertake the transcription of the interview tapes. The project team met frequently and the extended conversation in which they engaged is captured clumsily by this report. We learnt more than we can begin to tell.
The Advisory Team Evaluations and Investigations Program (EIP) funding depends on the establishment of a project advisory team, which includes a representative of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DEETYA). The membership of this project’s advisory team was: Professor Alan Cumming (Queensland University of Technology), Professor Diana Laurillard (Open University, United Kingdom), Professor John Bain (Griffith University), Associate Professor Gillian Whitlock (Director Open Learning Centre, Griffith University), Ms Susan Wilson (Acting Director, Open Learning Unit, Queensland University of Technology), Ms Lee Watts (representative of the Higher Education Council), and Mr David McCann (representative of DEETYA). Professor Cumming chaired all meetings of the Advisory Team. Professor Laurillard and Ms Watts were corresponding members.
34
The advisory team met on three occasions—in August and December 1995, and in May 1996. Between meetings, progress with and questions about implementation were shared with the team through a monthly team report prepared by Peter Taylor. Through the meetings and correspondence, the members of the advisory team provided excellent and timely advice to the project director. Members also reviewed an initial draft of the recommendations prior to the symposium, and an initial draft of this report, which was the principal focus of discussions at the May 1996 meeting.
Project Timescale The project commenced in July 1995, and was completed in June 1996. The approximate timing of activities was: July–August •
Establishment of personnel and development of procedures and protocols.
•
Conducting of preliminary literature review.
September–November •
Conducting of interviews related to the Faculty of Education.
November–January •
Coducting of interviews related to the Faculty of Humanities.
•
Processing of interview data from the Faculty of Humanities.
•
Development of initial plans for the symposium, including date and venue, and ‘claim this date’ advertising.
•
Submission of the interim report to the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.
January–February •
Provision of feedback on our interpretations to Faculty of Education respondents.
•
Conducting of interviews related to the Faculty of Law.
•
Identification of potential case studies, development of protocols for these, and extension of invitations to identified staff.
February–March •
Provision of feedback on our interpretations to respondents associated with Faculties of Humanities and Law.
•
Development of case studies began.
•
Development of more detailed plans for symposium, and invitations sent out.
35
April •
Development of draft recommendations.
•
Symposium conducted.
•
Development of final report to the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs begun.
May–June •
Finalisation of literature review.
•
Finalisation of the report.
Investigation Sites: Intentions The project investigated staff perceptions in two of the three large universities in Brisbane—Griffith University and the Queensland University of Technology (QUT). The Queensland University of Technology was created in 1989 by redesignation of the Queensland Institute for Technology, which had its origins in the Central Technical College, established in 1914 on what is now the university’s Gardens Point Campus. The current institution resulted from the amalgamation of three of the four campuses of the former Brisbane College of Advanced Education with Queensland University of Technology in 1992. Today (1996), Queensland University of Technology has an enrolment of over 27 000 students and is a major university in the Australian context, with a broad academic profile and an increasing involvement in research and postgraduate education. It has campuses at Carseldine, Kedron Park, Kelvin Grove and Gardens Point, all located in metropolitan Brisbane. Griffith University, created in 1971, was named after a significant political leader in Queensland and Australia—Sir Samuel Griffith—who held a number of high offices, including being the first Chief Justice of Australia from 1903–1919. The current institution resulted from two amalgamations: first with the fourth campus of the former Brisbane College of Advanced Education in 1989; and then with the Gold Coast College of Advanced Education in 1992. It has an enrolment of nearly 19 000 students (1996) across its five campuses: Nathan, Mt Gravatt, Gold Coast, the Queensland College of Art and the Queensland Conservatorium of Music. The project’s initial plan involved the investigation of two sites: Queensland University of Technology’s Faculty of Education (Kelvin Grove campus) and Griffith University’s Faculty of Humanities (Nathan campus). Preliminary discussion had been held with key decision-makers in both settings prior to submission of the funding application. Within Education, the investigation was to focus on the perceptions of academics involved in teaching the Master of Education course. Within Humanities, the investigation was to focus on perceptions of academics involved in teaching undergraduate subjects through
36
resource-based modes in the Bachelor of Arts course. Once the process of interviewing was begun, it became clear that the perspectives of those who occupied both academic management and support roles needed to be included. This was particularly necessary in the Queensland University of Technology context where there was extensive involvement by support staff in the development and delivery of teaching in flexible modes. Interviews associated with the Faculty of Education led to a decision to include a third site—the School of Law within Queensland University of Technology’s Faculty of Law, which is based on the Gardens Point campus. Here the investigation focused on the use of computer-based flexible learning practices, as distinct from the more text-based practices identified within the original two sites. The approaches to flexible delivery adopted by Law and Education are quite distinct due to historical, geographical and structural factors. Law did not have ready access to the facilities and support of the Open Learning Unit (located on the same campus as Education), and was informed that it would have to pay for access to those services. On the other hand, the Computer Based Education Unit is located on the same campus as Law, and was very willing to provide considerable expertise to support the school’s initiatives. In all cases, potential interviewees were identified as ‘main players’ by the person who was the project team’s initial contact at the site. Once interviewing began, additional potential respondents were identified either through reference to them within interview contexts, through reference to them in literature provided by respondents, or as a result of discussions within the project team.
Site Overview: Faculty of Education Queensland University of Technology has over 3100 staff, of whom over 1400 were employed as academic staff (1995 data). The Faculty of Education has an academic staff of approximately 150. While the faculty has a long-standing involvement in distance education, individuals had for some time been actively exploring and/or developing practices which became the focus of this investigation. All interviews were associated with the redevelopment of subjects within the Master of Education (MEd) course for teaching in an ‘open learning mode’ in addition to the more traditional ‘face-to-face mode’. Within this site, respondents tended to use the term ‘open learning’ to refer to the ‘flexible modes of delivery’ which are the focus of this report, and the former term tended to be associated with teaching off-campus students. Academics were at different stages of developing and implementing particular approaches to flexible modes of delivery following faculty decisions in 1993–94 which led to a target of delivering all Master of Education (MEd) subjects in ‘open learning mode’ by 1996. They were utilising a variety of approaches to program delivery and working with ‘managers’ whose experience was largely within the traditions of print-based distance and face-to-face teaching. It was clear
37
that this move was catalysed by faculty managers and did not have the support of more senior university managers—the faculty had to fund it out of its normal operating budget. There were suggestions that the faculty proceeded in a climate of concern over resourcing implications, and for this reason internal advocacy was consistently couched in terms of its ‘revenue neutrality’. The style of ‘open learning mode’ in which subjects are offered varies greatly, although all rely on print as the primary means of sharing information with students. One also uses video-based information, another audio-graphic based information, and several include compulsory face-to-face sessions. Student– student and student–lecturer interaction for off-campus students is a feature of most (but not all) subjects, with interaction supported via audio-graphics, teleconference, computer-mediated conferencing and face-to-face practices. These differing experiences and practices are reflected in the differing perceptions that respondents shared, and particularly in their perceptions about the nature and potential of ‘open learning’, and their consideration of pedagogical issues. Interviews Fifteen lecturers were interviewed. They were drawn from six of the faculty’s seven (1995) schools—the academic units responsible for the allocation of work loads including the development and implementation of subjects. Ten had prior experience of teaching in a distance education mode, while eight had prior experience in more technologically mediated forms of ‘open learning’ before they became involved in the faculty’s open learning initiative. Only three had no prior experience of teaching in alternative modes to face-to-face teaching. Collectively, the group has contributed to the redevelopment and development of over 20 MEd subjects in the ‘open learning mode’. Three senior academic managers—the dean and two heads of school—were interviewed. Two had experience of teaching and leadership within a Distance Education Centre earlier in their careers. Another eight individuals were interviewed because of the support they had provided to members of academic staff during the redevelopment and implementation of subjects in the MEd course, although, to varying degrees, their responsibilities were much broader than this. Only one was a member of the faculty. These respondents had a variety of roles, including supporting students (librarian, external studies liaison), supporting staff in the production of resource materials (instructional design, educational television [ETV] production) and providing technology support (audio-visual [AV] and information technology [IT] services). Their contributions to this report focus on issues related to interactions between academic and support staff, and to their perspectives of those interactions and the context within which they occurred.
38
During the investigation of ‘flexible modes of delivery’ at this site, it became clear that we should interview a number of staff who had responsibilities which were focused on the entire institution rather than a particular faculty—that is, those with a ‘wide angle’ view. Four such individuals were interviewed. They had a variety of responsibilities, including providing policy advice, managing the provision of technology infrastructure and support, managing support staff, providing information technology support to academic staff, and supporting academic staff in the production of resource materials. Their contributions to this report focus on issues related to the role of policy and information technology services in supporting the move to flexible modes of delivery. In Summary In this faculty, the move to adopt flexible modes of delivery was catalysed by a policy initiative, supported at a general level with funding sourced from within the faculty and largely reliant on print technology. It drew on the expertise and support of a significant network of ‘extra-faculty’ resource staff and involved a ‘blanket approach’ to academics’ involvement.
Site Overview: Faculty of Humanities Griffith University has over 2400 staff, of whom over 1000 were employed as academic staff (1996 data). Of the latter, approximately 76 are members of the Faculty of Humanities. All interviews were associated with the faculty’s decision to increase the use of ‘resource-based teaching’ in its undergraduate program. Resource-based teaching involves the use of print-based resources supplemented by face-to-face tutorial and workshop support to decrease the reliance on face-toface teaching. The faculty made a decision in early 1995 to deliver at least 40 per cent of the BA program in this manner by 1998. The faculty also has extensive experience in the use of ‘broadcast’ technology (via the OLAA) which uses centrally designed and developed courseware, with localised tutorial support. It was involved in that work from the inception of the OLAA and offers 23 subjects through it. Thus the faculty has an extensive history of ‘flexible modes of delivery’ involving both print and broadcast technologies. The faculty had recently merged two of its degree programs—the Bachelor of Arts in Australian and Comparative Studies (BAACS) (a print-based part-time program originally designed in the 1980s for a target audience of mature-age students) and the internal Bachelor of Arts in Humanities (a traditional face-toface full-time degree program). The need for the merger was attributed to a number of factors, including: •
market demand;
•
recognition of changing patterns of student enrolment;
•
the fact that the planning and developmental infrastructure for the print-based subjects had fallen into decay over the last four to five years;
39
•
the need to eliminate the ‘ghettoisation’ of the BAACS program; and
•
a change in university policy which encouraged greater use of resource-based teaching.
The faculty’s main concern was to develop structures for the new degree program that reflected and supported the ‘modern reality of mass education’. Issues of student access were very important. The merger of the two degree programs was viewed as providing every student with the possibility of studying in a multiplicity of modes. Thus the goal was to make the new program available to all students in both on- and off-campus modes of delivery. The picture for the faculty’s initiatives towards resource-based learning was that this involved a combination of face-to-face teaching and print-based/resource-based learning. Given the faculty’s commitment to quality resource-based learning, its major task was to work out how to run a single degree in multiple modes. The terms ‘resource-based teaching’, ‘distance education’ and ‘external teaching’ were used interchangeably by interviewees at this site. Those who preferred to use the term ‘resource-based teaching’ indicated that this was because of ‘the focus on the actual delivery of the product, the education product’. On the other hand, ‘resource-based teaching’ was referred to by other interviewees as ‘a term of convenience’—‘an empty box into which we’ll put lots of different things’— where students are provided with resources in physical form rather than just the lecture and tutorial situation. The underlying issue was that ‘flexible modes of delivery’ tended to be associated with ‘resource-based teaching’ rather than the OLAA initiatives. Interviews Eleven individuals with teaching responsibilities within the faculty, and varying degrees of involvement with flexible learning, were interviewed during the period November 1995–February 1996. Two individuals whose roles included aspects of support for the flexible learning work of lecturing staff in the faculty were interviewed during the period January– February 1996. While the interviewees had distinct roles within the Open Learning Unit and the Distance Education Unit, the discussion in this report focuses on issues related to interactions between academic and support staff, and to their perspectives on those interactions and the context within which they occurred. Seven individuals whose roles included aspects of academic management in and beyond the faculty were interviewed during the period November 1995–March 1996. They were interviewed primarily because of their involvement in discussing, managing and making academic contributions to the move to increase the use of resource-based teaching within the faculty. The interviewees had a variety of roles, from senior management in the university, to head of school, to director of the Open Learning Unit.
40
In Summary In this faculty, the move to adopt flexible modes of delivery was catalysed by a policy initiative. It took advantage of existing resources and expertise, largely relied on print technology, required little additional funding or involvement by support staff and allowed for ‘optional involvement’ on the part of academics.
Site Overview: School of Law The School of Law is one of two schools within Queensland University of Technology’s Faculty of Law. It is located on the Gardens Point campus, the original QIT campus, and includes 49 of the faculty’s 83 academic staff. The school has an enviable reputation for the quality of its courses and for the quality of the face-to-face teaching of subjects within those courses. When the university was named the ‘University of the Year’ in 1994, much of the media presentation of its teaching practices drew on examples of teaching within this school. Entry to its courses is very competitive. Consequently the school is under little pressure in terms of a need to attract students, although it is experiencing competitive pressure from other local providers of legal education. The school offers an LLB degree entirely in the distance education mode, and has done so for a considerable period. Academics also use a variety of other flexible forms of pedagogy. Because the focus of interviews was on the use of computerbased forms of flexibility, they necessarily underplayed the significance of other forms of flexibility. However, they tended to affirm the significance of computermediated flexibility in terms of the school’s development of more flexible modes of delivery for non-distance education. In this school, the move to actively promote the adoption of more flexible modes of delivery was seen in terms of: •
the school’s commitment to improving the quality of its teaching and learning;
•
the Dean’s support for and involvement in innovative projects;
•
the availability of funds (primarily from the university and the Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching (CAUT)) for innovative projects; and
•
the belief that their roles as teachers required each academic to ‘teach the students in the best possible way’.
While there was a clear perception that the faculty was motivated by a concern to improve the quality of its teaching and learning, some respondents indicated a belief that the adoption of computer based education (CBE) innovations as a preferred strategy to achieve this improvement had been due in part to ‘market demand’ for increased levels of computer literacy for graduates, and also ‘to the amount of money made available by Queensland University of Technology’ for
41
CBE-based innovations. That is, the dean was seen as having supported a focus on teaching and learning through a variety of initiatives, but the dollar value of support provided by the university to CBE initiatives tended to make the latter more visible. Initiatives were instigated ‘from the bottom’, and supported by both the dean and significant funding from within and beyond the school and faculty. Interviews Four individuals whose roles included or focused on teaching were interviewed during the period December 1995–March 1996. The interviewees had quite different sets of experiences and perspectives on issues of relevance to this project. Their ‘selection’ was not intended to provide a representative sample of the perspectives of academics within this school. Rather, they were nominated because of their relatively distinct and interesting approaches to flexible modes of delivery, and the development and use of technology. Two had worked extensively with team-based innovations in the use of video and computer-based multimedia, one had extensive individual experience in the development and use of computer-based multimedia, while the fourth had considerable experience in the area of distance education. All spoke of significant changes in their approaches to teaching during the last four to five years, and the strong relationship between those changes and their involvement in practices associated with flexible modes of delivery. This process of change in teaching had been strongly supported by the increased attention given to teaching within the tertiary sector during this period, and through the funding that had accompanied this attention. A point to emphasise here is that, while their involvement in more flexible practices initially tended to be motivated by a dissatisfaction with aspects of more traditional face-to-face teaching practices, their current approaches quite explicitly include significant elements of face-toface teaching. Three individuals whose roles included or focused on the management and advising of academic staff in the faculty and school were also interviewed during the same period. They had a variety of roles and quite distinct responsibilities— dean, head of school and educational consultant. In Summary The initiatives examined in the investigation focused on the use of information and communication technologies. In turn, their use was facilitated either through teamwork, which allowed academics access to the expertise of support staff, or through individual academics taking the initiative to personally develop that expertise. In this site, the move to adopt flexible modes of delivery was catalysed by concerns to improve teaching and learning and the availability of funding for staff-initiated innovation and led by the dean through example and personal support. It incorporated significant examples of CBE-based teaching and learning, utilised considerable levels of support for the use of those technologies in the
42
form of both infrastructure and support, and was largely being instigated through the personal initiative of individual members of the academic staff.
Methods of Investigation The investigation involved three primary methods of data collection: 1.
collection of perceptions of administrators, support staff and teachers on the value of different teaching strategies, modes of delivery, and information and communication technologies by questionnaires and interviews;
2.
collection of materials relating to the adoption of flexible delivery modes and/or the use of information and communication technologies at the three sites. This included university, faculty and school level documentation on policies and practices; samples of materials prepared for students; and samples of materials used by individuals and/or teams to guide the planning, development and/or implementation of subjects; and
3.
a search for and review of relevant literature.
Interviews All interviews were conducted by Lucy Lopez, after initial contact was made by letter. The letter included a two-page extract from the funding submission to provide an overview of the project’s intentions, particularly its objectives and intended outcomes. Responses to these invitations were followed up by Lucy, who arranged a convenient place and time for each interview. All respondents were interviewed on their own campuses—most in their own offices. Except for two instances of equipment failure, all interviews were audio recorded. The interviews were semi-structured with questions tending to focus on a number of issues. For academic staff, these—and related sub-issues—included: •
view of their role: − intentions;
•
how they saw open/flexible learning in relation to that role: − responsibilities; − interactions with other colleagues—direction/policy;
•
how they arrived at that interpretation/perspective: − sources of information; − experiences—as a learner and/or as a teacher/worker;
43
•
their current involvement with open/flexible learning: − does it involve new teaching practices? − is it innovative? − does it involve the use of information and/or communication technologies? − does it involve teamwork or networking with colleagues? − is it satisfying? Which aspects are and which aren’t?
•
how has that involvement been facilitated and/or inhibited by the context? − institutional practices (e.g. policy development and/or implementation); − funding; student administration; support staff; − technology infrastructure; − other resource factors (e.g. library); − discipline/content area;
•
in what ways was this involvement changing their role? − sense of personal purpose and career expectations; − role of higher education institutions; and − role of students;
•
thoughts on the future impact of open learning: − on tertiary education; − on teaching and learning within higher education; − on its clients; and − on themselves and their colleagues.
Where we had additional information about the interviewees’ work, the discussion of issues tended to be framed by that prior information. For example, where the current involvement of the respondent in flexible learning practices was known to the interviewer, the interview tended to begin with a discussion of those practices. However, during the discussion the other issues were also explored. Issues that were introduced during any interview were also explored. As a result, interviews varied in length from 20 to 100 minutes.
Analysis of Interview Transcripts Transcripts were analysed in a two-step process. First, the entire transcript was reviewed to identify statements relevant to the issues which were focal to the interview. In most cases, this was the same set of issues identified above. In other cases they also included particular additional issues, such as a policy initiative or a project. Statements were then collected under those ‘headings/issues’, and represented as responses to those issues with accompanying quotations from the transcript. This step meant that some transcripts which were originally over 20 pages in length were reduced to five pages.
44
The second step involved the integration of the responses of individuals to provide an overview statement of the perceptions of groups of respondents for each site. Those groups, and the number of respondents whose views were drawn upon, were identified earlier in the section headed ‘Interviews’ for each site. The outcome tended to be a four- to six-page statement which identified significant elements in the context, explored the approach to flexible modes of delivery being adopted in that context including the reasons for the move to adopt more flexible practices and the reasons for the adoption of the particular approach, presented perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of that approach, and then reached a conclusion. This was an interpretative statement, based on themes which were, to some degree, common to those respondents and other themes which tended to identify issues which were contested within the site. The interpretation was framed by the objectives and intended outcomes of this project. It looked to identify messages that might be of use to those who were considering a move to adopt more flexible practices, or who were currently engaged in or evaluating such a move. Several issues were seen as significant in this context. These included the identification of the continuity between the traditional and flexible delivery practices of these respondents, the identification of challenges to their beliefs and values resulting from any discontinuity, and the exploration of these challenges in relation to both the actual practices adopted, and the context within which they were adopted Once prepared, these overview statements were returned to the respondents whose views informed them. The letter that accompanied this included the following statements (see Appendix 2 for the full text). The primary purpose in sending the synopsis to you is to seek your response to its accuracy and completeness. Are your views accurately represented, and is the statement adequately representative of those views? Please notate and/or edit it as you see fit. Its accuracy and comprehensiveness are very important to us, as the complete set of these general statements will provide the basis for both the recommendations and major sections of the final report to DEET[YA]. If you have any concern that any statements within the attached synopsis could be seen as both directly attributable to yourself, and having the potential to impact negatively on you, would you draw it/them to our attention. Please respond to (and on) the synopsis. It is vital that we ‘get it right’.
The rate and nature of response to these overviews suggested that, in the main, they presented an accurate and useful overview of perceptions within that site. A number of respondents expressed considerable appreciation of that overview. Thus, while we had initially intended to provide interpretations based on individual transcripts, this step seemed to provide both a less personally threatening and a more inclusive and informative communication for respondents.
45
Literature Review The development of the application for funding was based on an initial literature review. However, the actual process of investigation tended to focus on the identification of perceptions of participants in the three sites without the use of a further literature review to identify either issues to guide the interview process or issues to guide the interpretation of the interview outcomes. Thus the process of analysis was grounded in the local and personal experiences of respondents, as shared through the initial interviews, responses to the overview statements and then within the context of the symposium (see below). Having conducted that analysis, and developed drafts of possible recommendations and case studies, the investigation turned to a more thorough literature review and analysis only after the completion of the symposium. Thus the literature was used to sharpen the grounded interpretations through offering the possibility of making comparisons between our observations and interpretations and those based on investigations of other sites. Additionally, the literature review offered the possibility of framing this report in terms of the broader discussion of ‘flexible modes of delivery’ and the educational use of information and communication technologies.
The Symposium The submission for funding included the intention to conduct a one-day symposium in April 1996 during which the analysis, case studies and tentative outcomes were to be discussed with those academics who had been involved in the project, either as respondents or as members of the advisory team. It was intended to provide an opportunity for those respondents to provide further input into the investigation. More detailed planning for the symposium began with the December 1995 meeting of the advisory team, and the subsequent meeting of a planning group (directors and Professor Alan Cumming) in mid-January 1996. The final planning was undertaken by the project team. It was decided to extend the invitation to attend this event to all members of each of the participating faculties, to the deans of all other faculties at each of the collaborating universities, and to other interested parties, such as the Open Learning Unit of TAFE. Brochures to invite participation in the symposium (see Appendix 3) were distributed during February and March. Two brochures were prepared: one for those who had been interviewed and a second for those who were essentially unfamiliar with the project. Those brochures indicated that the purpose of the symposium was: to share the analysis, case studies and tentative outcomes of this project, prior to the preparation of the final report for DEET[YA]. Through it we seek to ensure that we have represented the perspectives of those we interviewed, check that we have not missed any important perspectives of members of staff, and gain feedback on the relevance and significance of the tentative recommendations to members of staff.
46
The symposium plan (see Appendix 3) allowed for discussion of drafts of the case studies and of the recommendations. The latter were circulated to all registrants in the week prior to the symposium, via an email network. Participants were invited to provide written feedback on these on pro forma sheets provided at the beginning of relevant sessions. Forty-six people, 21 of whom had no prior involvement in the project, participated in the symposium. Thus, through the email network and the symposium, the project’s draft case studies and recommendations were opened for valuable feedback. The symposium, in particular, provided a focus for development of those documents, and for discussion of them, a discussion which proved extremely valuable both to the project and to those who participated. We have had numerous requests for further symposia to allow those interested to discuss these and related issues. It seems that the symposium enabled the transient formation of an interest-focused community of learners. The desire for more experiences of this type suggests the potential of symposia as staff development activities.
47
4
Views of the Academics This chapter explores the perspectives of academics on the moves to adopt flexible modes of delivery, and to use communication and information technologies. It focuses on changes in their practices and beliefs. And, given that these were explored in three different contexts, it explores relationships between those changes and the local context. Within those local contexts it is obvious that some issues have great significance, including the policy framework (encompassing aspects of how academics’ work is recognised and rewarded in that context), the discipline, the technology infrastructure, and cultural issues related to traditions and experiences within that setting. However, in attempting to tease out these issues there is a risk of seeking them as separate. They are not. They are interrelated in complex ways, and individuals perceive them and their significance in idiosyncratic ways. Thus the story related here is necessarily one that reflects broader themes within contexts. The case studies in Part II of the report dramatise this, providing a much more personalised picture. An overview of the sites, and the process of interviewing used in seeking the perceptions of the 30 academics, which provides the data on which this chapter is based, was provided in Chapter 3.
Views of ‘Flexibility’ It is significant to note at the outset that all discussions of flexibility tended to reflect the context within which they were shared. Within Education, flexibility was seen primarily to signal a change from more traditional ODE and face-to-face practices as academics moved towards ‘open modes of delivery’. Some attempted to develop a common set of flexible strategies for teaching all students (see Case Study 1), while others focused most attention on developing more flexible strategies for teaching off-campus students. These efforts drew on the resources available within that context, particularly the university’s Open Learning Unit, within which resources for developing print-based teaching materials and the conduct of teleconferencing (see Case Study 2) were available. As Case Study 6 indicates, one respondent within this site was actively developing his computerbased CIT practices, but problems in the area of technology infrastructure were impeding those efforts. Team-based approaches were evident in a number of cases, and those teams most often included support staff as well as a number of academics—see Case Studies 1, 4 and 5. Within Humanities, ‘the move’ was primarily understood through reference to the BAACS print-based program (see Case Study 3). Interestingly, a number of the respondents were teaching through the OLAA network, but that involvement seemed not to have any significance for ‘the move’, which was conceived of
48
primarily in terms of print-based approaches to flexibility. That is, the starting point was a rather traditional set of ODE practices. Little attention was being paid to the issue of CIT, in spite of the OLAA experience, and none of the respondents was seeking to develop more computer-based strategies. What needs to be recognised is that this site had little infrastructure support. While there was an Open Learning Unit, its resources tended to be ignored by respondents. The picture that emerged was of individuals working to develop their particular preferences, with little teamwork. In the Law faculty, academics were working within what can be characterised as an innovation-led context. While a range of other flexible initiatives were being undertaken, respondents were identified on the basis of their involvement in more technology-rich initiatives. The use of CIT meant that two of the three projects that were investigated had been heavily dependent on both special funding and extensive support from the Computer Based Education Unit located on the same campus. The major focus was on-campus teaching, even though the school had an extensive involvement in distance education, because the approaches tended to focus on computer-based CIT and off-campus students had restricted access to the CBE infrastructure/network. Thus flexible approaches were being explored primarily because of their perceived potential to increase the quality of teaching and learning for on-campus students in the short term, rather than as a ‘marketoriented’ management initiative—see Case Studies 5 and 7.
Rationale for ‘the Move’ The notion of ‘crisis’ is often represented in the management literature as inviting two different responses: one focuses on it in terms of the opportunities that it presents; the other perceives it as a threat. It is clear that respondents have experienced ‘the move’ in terms of both responses. What is more interesting is that many who initially experienced it as a threat have moved on to explore the opportunities that it presented in extremely creative and positive ways. In terms of the three sites, the Law academics tended to focus on the opportunities. They were, after all, innovators in terms of this ‘move’. At the other extreme were the Humanities academics, who tended to express an overriding feeling of scepticism about the positive aspects of multiple delivery modes and flexible learning. It is interesting to note that, at both of these sites, it is somewhat misleading to even speak of ‘a move’. In reality there was little pressure for change, or direction towards that pressure, with little subsequent mass to the ‘movement’. The Education academics, on the other hand, were responding to a very firm directive from the dean, and all were involved—all were ‘moving’. Interviews at this site suggest that, while initial interpretations of the directive tended to focus on it as a threat, respondents had, in the main, moved on to explore the opportunities that it afforded. However, the sense of scepticism of the rhetoric attached to ‘the move’ remained. They had changed, but not been converted. The majority of respondents perceived flexible learning as being advocated from an economic rationalist perspective—‘a government/management push to increase
49
student numbers with reduced economic outlay’. However, they did not identify with this agenda, hence were not trying to ‘reduce economic outlays’. The reasons these academics gave for involvement in the move tended to focus on issues of equity and access, and the related perception that strategies associated with CIT and/or flexible modes of delivery provided a positive alternative to the more traditional distance education practices in which they had been involved. This was consistent across the three sites. Seen positively, equity was discussed in terms of offering students greater opportunities to tailor ‘study to suit their lifestyle’, while access was seen in terms of a potentially positive effect on student enrolment. Seen less optimistically, discussions of equity focused on unequal access to particular resources and/or technologies and on capacities for using them. Nestled within the positive version of this theme were several interesting variations. The majority of respondents were motivated by negative perceptions of, and/or experiences as students of, more traditional ODE practices. When these respondents used CIT, they focused that use on facilitating interaction. Interestingly, several respondents suggested that one of the beneficial outcomes of their projects was increased student motivation and attendance. The latter provides an unexpected example of an access ‘backwash’ effect, with success increasing access to educational activities rather than the more traditional focus on increasing access to enrolment. A number of respondents spoke of previous inequities in the experiences of oncampus students and off-campus students. The strategies they adopted tended to focus on increasing the equity between these two groups through strategies such as: •
reducing the number of contact hours for on-campus students;
•
providing all students with a degree of choice in the way they approached their studies;
•
providing on-campus students with the ‘distance’ learning materials for the first time; and
•
facilitating interactivity and collaboration between all students and with the lecturer/s.
In all cases, ‘flexibility’ was seen as involving the provision of increased learning opportunities and options. In addition, ‘flexibility’ was seen as an attempt to work towards the notion of the autonomous learner, particularly challenging the ‘culture of dependence amongst on-campus students’. Thus the move to adopt flexible practices was seen as contributing to improved levels of student satisfaction and quality of learning, with related positive outcomes for the academics—a ‘win– win’ outcome. Furthermore, most academics believed that the success of the move depended primarily on the quality of the student–teacher relationships that their work supported. Consequently, it seems appropriate to claim that their work is ‘relationship’ rather than ‘client’ centred, and that in reflecting on that work, academics recognise that their own sources of satisfaction, not just those of their students, need to be addressed in order for that work to be sustainable.
50
Design of ‘their Move’ The transcripts suggested that the actual practices adopted in any design were an outcome of the particular set of beliefs about teaching and learning held by the individual or the team responsible for the design. That is, there was a sense that, once those beliefs were articulated, the design could be predicted. As a result, there were many enthusiastic accounts of practices which involved the exploration—even discovery—of those beliefs, and the opportunity to actively experiment with alternative approaches to teaching in ways which were consistent with them. In particular, for those with prior experience of distance teaching, the move was experienced as an opportunity to develop strategies which were more professionally satisfying. For them, it offered the opportunity to extend the availability of on-campus practices to off-campus students. In most cases, lecturers sought to build on their current repertoire of teaching strategies—to develop designs based on similar strategies to those that were successful in face-to-face situations. Efforts focused on creating environments where students felt at ease to debate, could raise issues/problems and share different perspectives on the same problem. Again, these approaches reflected the designer’s beliefs about learning. Several noted the importance of being able to articulate those beliefs as part of their teaching processes, particularly at postgraduate level. This continuity between belief and practice is exemplified in the view that decisions about teaching should be made in response to the question: ‘How it is [that] one is to promote [the desired] kind of learning?’ However, responding is problematic given the need to create ‘learning packages’ within assumptions which are themselves seen to be grounded in relatively inflexible notions of what knowledge is and how one should teach or learn. These notions place a priority on information presentation, and its ‘uptake’ by students as ‘fixed information’ presented as non-negotiable—‘words that don’t move’ and ‘decontextualised certainty’. This is the mentality of ‘take this pill and you will be changed’. Clearly beliefs such as these are difficult to address, but for some the move is appropriately focusing attention on issues related to text and mediation. Involvement with alternative modes of delivery varied greatly within each of the three sites. Within Humanities, some lecturers were producing packages in new formats whilst others were comfortable replicating the more traditional BAACS print-based model. A small number had experimented with audio teleconferencing, electronic mail, videos and audio tapes. The expense of teleconferencing, difficulties in accessing technical support, and the unaccounted time they spent conducting such initiatives were seen as disincentives to experiment with those and other technologies. Other respondents viewed student access to technology as problematic, with specific reference made to the limited access of women to computer technology. It is also very apparent that the designs adopted in both Education and Law challenge the assumption that all ‘external study’ has to be text-based. Instead,
51
academics attempted to exploit the available technologies to achieve the sort of pedagogy they desired. Unfortunately, as in Humanities, the gap between preferences, promises and realities caused considerable difficulties. The actual limitations of the availability, reliability and capacity of the selected technologies caused many in Education to initially regret their decisions to incorporate it into their pedagogy. They mentioned physical exhaustion, nervous tension and technological breakdown as outcomes—‘paw prints on our pedagogy’. For one, the use of technology meant that her work was ‘reigned in rather than free to flare out’. In addition, the adoption of new technologies requires the adaptation of old strategies to the new medium. For example, one respondent noted that inviting interaction in a teleconference setting requires different invitations to converse compared with those used in face-to-face settings. Beyond those experiences, there were other costs associated with the achievement of each design. Most mentioned that they underestimated the time and energy required. One noted that the continuity of conversation built into the new design meant that, even though she was required to teach only part of the semester’s course, she had to attend all sessions. Thus her actual workload was far greater than was officially recognised. Others noted that their availability for student contact had to be far more flexible, with after-hours access meaning phone access at their home. Of course, the time-costs varied from design to design, as did the attitude of the lecturer to that cost. Some accepted it, and were relatively dismissive of those who complained. Others anticipated it, and deliberately avoided the incorporation of strategies or technologies that would require more time to be adopted. Of course, this begs the question as to which is the more strategically appropriate response. Whatever the particular experience, it is clear that there was a positive relationship between the available time and support, and the consideration given to alternative modes of delivery—with little time or support leading to little consideration. The same might be said of the opportunity to consider responses to the designs. That is, while feedback was important, academics had to have both the time and the encouragement to learn from that feedback, and to make appropriate responses. As a result, there was considerable disquiet about the possibility that academic managers might withdraw support for practices because of perceived shortcomings or ‘funding blowouts’ during development and/or initial implementation. Of particular concern was the fear that they may withdraw support for technologies that supported interaction, given the centrality of interaction to most designs, and force a move back to more traditional distance education practices—practices which are contrary to the beliefs that motivated the flexibility evidenced through the interviews. Academics believed that they could both improve the effectiveness of their use of technologies, and reduce their costs, but felt they needed to be given the support to continue the development of strategies which were both educationally effective and cost-efficient. A related perception involved the view that academics have to learn from their experience of teaching through technology before they can focus on helping students learn in that context. There was a sense that, during the initial experience
52
of teaching in an unusual medium, it is inevitable that academics find it difficult to be student-centred in their teaching—they are too busy learning. They are unable to focus primarily on their students’ learning until they are able to ignore the technology and/or their use of it. This provides an entirely unexpected rationale and focus for staff development. A related concern over time involved the operation of various university procedures in time-frames which stifled more flexible modes of delivery—a ‘feeling of entrapment by a range of procedures which you have no authority to change’. One respondent mentioned that a student at Mt Isa was told that university procedures required that he travel to the main Brisbane campus to be given a new password to allow him access to the university’s computer network as an example of a ‘culture of control of all technologies that are centrally based in the university’. Others raised the issue of subject accreditation and the time taken to meet the related procedures which made the revision of teaching materials to flexibly respond to student needs very difficult. Similarly, the procedures involved in student enrolment were seen as incompatible with the more flexible approaches being adopted by the lecturing staff. These academics have, in the main, designed a range of versions of flexible practices—approaches which reflect their educational beliefs, and which use technologies in enabling ways. In such a context there is a strong endorsement of what respondents see as ‘the principles of open learning’. It is obvious that, while a number ‘got excited about technology’, very few seemed to believe that flexible modes of delivery were necessarily concerned with technology. They seem to have intuitively understood that openness refers to a philosophy rather than a mode of delivery. That is, they believed that technology could enhance the openness of any mode of delivery and make it easier and more productive, but ‘the essence of it is not technology, the essence is in the word open’.
Outcomes of ‘the Move’ The majority of academics saw their ‘projects’ as unfinished—as continuing to evolve. This reflected and nurtured their enthusiasm for this work. In the context of a move to decrease the difference between on- and off-campus students’ experiences, most respondents believed that the quality of teaching had, at worst, remained constant for on-campus students, and been greatly enhanced for off-campus students. Some respondents indicated that they ‘wouldn’t distinguish between them … [because they] just involved different sorts of relationships’. These positive perceptions focused on the opportunities to ‘use the technology in ways that are innovative’. As an extension of earlier comments, one respondent indicated that, while the interactive aspect of teaching was nonnegotiable, there had to be a knowledge base underlying that interaction. Thus the opportunity to have on-campus students read materials before attending workshops tended to increase the quality of the interaction during the workshops.
53
On the other hand, while the on- and off-campus modes shared many similarities academics found it difficult at first to decrease their reliance on body language and eye contact in communicating with students, particularly where they attempted to transfer successful face-to-face strategies to technologically mediated contexts. The latter were seen as requiring greater effort and concentration on obtaining feedback. This problem was compounded when teaching involved interaction between on- and off-campus students. In one case, those difficulties were alleviated in the second year of a particular mode of teaching due to: •
the academics feeling ‘more relaxed, more tuned in’;
•
a more vocal group of external students; and
•
the academics working harder to build a sense of community, and through establishing protocols for contributing to discussions.
Some respondents suggested that the combination of on-campus students with offcampus students broadened the perspective of everyone—a benefit they anticipated, but not to the extent that was realised—while others mentioned the increased importance of humour in technologically mediated communication.
Gains The move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery has offered a range of very significant professional development opportunities, although no respondent spoke of it in those terms. For example, for many the move led to their active exploration of particular technologies to facilitate interaction for on- and offcampus students, something which they would not have done as a matter of course. It also led to a greater focus on the quality of the resources they prepared. Others mentioned the value of collaborating, both in the development of particular resources, and in the exploration of ‘what might be’. Respondents identified a number of particularly satisfying aspects of their use of more flexible modes, including: •
establishing lines of communication with and between students;
•
a greater sense of who the student really was, particularly through teleconferencing, as opposed to ‘a name on a page’ in traditional ODE practices;
•
a sense of student participation and appreciation of the teleconferencing medium that was ‘almost palpable ... quite a wonderful experience’;
•
student enthusiasm for it; and
•
the record of interaction/participation that it provided—making not only the planning but also the implementation stages visible.
Respondents found off-campus students to be quite enthusiastic participants, who ‘had a lot to give’. A print-based approach to flexible delivery, compared with more traditional on-campus practices, was perceived by some to provide higher
54
quality support to students through clearly stating learning goals, and assessment and course requirements. The actual production of a flexible approach to a subject can be rewarding in ways that teaching in an internal mode may not. For example: •
Skills in authoring (writing and thinking) can be developed through involvement in the external mode—the actual writing of the package can be enjoyable.
•
The external mode preserves a certain kind of distance (from students) which is valued by those who enjoy being less immersed.
•
Teaching in this mode leads to a more diagnostic and focused approach to students’ work.
•
The work with the external students is always visible.
Supporters argued that the use of teleconferencing achieves effective group discussion, and this form of interaction allows students to learn a lot more from one another, although cost and the actual quality of the technologies used is a concern. Additionally, while it is clear that any version of flexibility tends to be idiosyncratic and teacher-focused in terms of the initial design, many respondents indicated that they were both extremely sensitive to student feedback on the effectiveness of that design, and were actively responding to that feedback. Thus engagement with student feedback provided the opportunity to reflect not only on the value of particular practices, but also on some of the beliefs underlying those practices. This is reflected in suggestions of backwash effects for on-campus teaching. For example, one respondent indicated that his involvement in offcampus teaching led him to reconsider his on-campus practices—particularly in terms of their clarity. Involvement helped him to clarify what a community of learners looked like, and to recognise that student engagement in the critical analysis of ideas was more noticeable in the written than the verbal context. Another noted that it had reinforced for her the value of focusing teaching on ‘what is problematic for the student’, and that this was most obvious only after students had interacted with ideas. Hence she suggested that on-campus teaching should be focused more on interaction than on information delivery via lectures. It also led other respondents to pay more attention to the knowledge that all students brought to their learning. A number of positive outcomes focus on the issue of equity between on and offcampus students, including backwash effects for on-campus teaching. One respondent noted a ‘conceptual change’ that was reshaping her teaching in several senses. At one level, involvement had led her to explore the issue of evaluation. Beyond this, she was re-conceptualising her approach to student diversity. Rather than teaching to accommodate particular needs and also meeting the requirements of the course, she was attempting to take the individual needs of her students into consideration and reshape the content of the subject. Further, she identified a shift in her thinking about the appropriate intentions of postgraduate teaching from developing an interpretative mode of thinking to a critical mode of thinking in her students. Other advantages for on-campus students include the benefits of the
55
extra time and energy invested by academics in preparing for off-campus teaching, reflected in their on-campus teaching, and contact with a broader range of peers.
Concerns While the move to increase the use of flexible modes of delivery is quite visible, there is a perception that the institutions have not adequately developed the necessary policy frameworks, financial resources, support and technology infrastructures, or quality assurance mechanisms. Academics are sceptical of claims as to the cost-effectiveness of the move, for either the institution or individual academics. Concern for the latter extends to a fear that the investment of time in preparing teaching materials might impact negatively on other aspects of their work, and the potential that this has to stunt their career development. Clearly the move is not seen as a resource-neutral exercise. Other general concerns include perceptions that: •
while academics have limited experience with ODE practices, most tend to regard the practices as inflexible and are disinterested in exploring them;
•
industrial issues associated with ‘unaccounted time’ and intellectual property rights need to be addressed;
•
involvement could lead to ‘spreading one’s self too thinly’;
•
students may not have the skills required for technology-based learning, and flexible learning modes may be particularly inappropriate for school leavers; and
•
while the economically effective use of many ODE strategies depends upon maximising student enrolments, it is too simplistic to believe that access to more students will automatically arise from the introduction of more flexible modes of delivery.
56
One interviewee suggested that ODE tended to be ‘a very one directional process’, while a number were adamant that students wanted more face-to-face teaching. One of the perceived effects of reduced contact time was that students went into an ‘extractive mode’, which was ‘quite deadening’. As a result, a small number of respondents had consciously resisted alternative modes of delivery. A number of concerns were more specifically focused on perceived disadvantages of the ‘packaging’ associated with ODE practices. These include the following perceptions: •
Not every kind of learning can go into a package. For example, one respondent identified a potential loss of the opportunity to continue research components of subjects if they were converted to packages, particularly in terms of the adequacy of library resources to support this strategy. Another expressed the fear that there could be a loss of specific skills, such as listening and speaking, which were not suited to development through textbased approaches.
•
Academics feel threatened and are reluctant to teach from packages because this requires that they teach other people’s work—‘a very unrewarding teaching experience’. Reasons include: a perceived lack of skill to teach what somebody else has designed; differing viewpoints on course content; and loss of their authority as author.
•
The specific authoring skills required to develop resource-based materials should not be expected of all academics.
•
Packages may need to have a shelf life of five to six years if they are to be economically viable.
•
The package-based approach is detrimental to students because it ignores the need to ‘bond students into a subject’.
•
The quality of a teaching package may be sacrificed due to resource limitations during its development and a lack of opportunities to revise it.
Other respondents identified a concern with the information provided in documents which advocate flexible learning. These documents were seen as using specialist jargon and failing to engage directly with what academics were doing. Thus the documents were seen as abstract and idealistic rather than as something constructed out of the experience of actual teaching/teachers. Allied to this type of concern was an anxiety that, because a particular practice is called ‘flexible’, it must be better than what academics are already doing—which may be traditional, but not necessarily less effective. These concerns suggest that discussions of ‘flexibility’ are seen as excluding any valuing of ‘traditional’ practices. As a result, some respondents believed that most academics see very little continuity between face-to-face and flexible teaching. Given that we tended to interview those who had experienced aspects of flexible teaching, this concern may be much more common amongst those who have not had those experiences.
57
Views on Technology Irrespective of the amount of support accessed, the move to adopt CIT was stressful. Those who had most support did not appear to have had a trouble-free experience. Indeed, the ones who had the most trouble-free experience of flexible modes of delivery were those who used technology the least. Communication and information technology (CIT) is primarily being used for four purposes in these sites: •
to facilitate interactivity between students and with the academics;
•
to allow for synchronous participation in ‘virtual teaching’;
•
to allow for asynchronous presentation of information; and
•
to allow student interaction with that information.
In some cases, much of that information is focused on simulating the ‘situation that students will encounter as professionals’. Thus there is a sense that technology is not being used solely to improve the delivery of information currently made available through lectures and similar activities, but to also provide a more authentic set of experiences in which students are challenged to apply and extend the understandings introduced through more traditional teaching practices. This was particularly the case in Law. Advocates of the use of CIT were seen by many respondents as failing to appreciate that its widespread adoption is dependent on more than just its availability. These respondents believed that both support staff and academic managers failed to appreciate the need for technology to become invisible within the learning environment—to appreciate that each failure of technology completely interrupts the pedagogical process, and tends to frustrate both academics and students. Many respondents commented on the poor quality of the communication links, and some expressed the view that support staff seemed not to understand the time-frames within which they were either planning or teaching. For the latter, there was a view that support should address both academic and technological issues, instead of the current tendency to separate them. Using computer technology also added particular problems, including: •
the need to invest large amounts of time ‘if it is to be done properly’;
•
unpredicted difficulties in programming interactive tasks;
•
problems in running programs (in some cases these problems were not identified until projects were close to finalisation);
•
the gap between the hardware available to students, particularly off-campus students, and the hardware requirements of the projects;
•
difficulties in evaluating ‘products’ within this new environment; and
•
difficulties in the areas of copyright, and updating information.
58
The most complex applications of technology involved the greatest levels of sacrifice by the ‘innovators’. In several instances, these were also the applications which involved the greatest element of collaboration between the innovators and support staff. Accessing the expertise of the latter reduced the need to develop ‘technology skills’, but those support staff could do little to help with the pedagogical skills. Consequently, it may be more cost-effective to devote greater attention to the development of ‘template programs’ so that academics need fewer computer skills to achieve high-quality learning resources. The value of, and need for, support staff who could coordinate the organisational and administrative requirements was mentioned by several respondents. A number of respondents indicated high levels of anxiety when considering the use of ‘high’ technology. One spoke of feeling disempowered—profoundly unskilled in terms of her capacity to consider and/or use that technology—while at the same time feeling deskilled with respect to her original face-to-face practices. However, once academics and students develop their skills, and infrastructure support is readily available, then technology-based teaching is seen as having great potential.
Professional Development There is a sense that the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery has increased respondents’ interest in professional development. Some indicated that they had become more interested in exploring additional modes of delivery and technologies. For example, some said they would like to know more about videoconferencing and setting up email facilities for their students. Others mentioned an interest in the design of effective print materials—how to make materials more ‘reader-friendly’. The point is that, for the majority, their involvement has increased rather than decreased their willingness to explore technology, although it is clear that they want that exploration to be in the service of quality learning, not just to satisfy their curiosity. Several respondents suggested that there could be considerable benefit in attempting to link up with ‘outside’ users of information and communication technologies—for example, in health and primary industries—and to share learning and understandings with them. In terms of the delivery of staff development, a number of issues were raised. One respondent suggested a local model of delivery—that within schools, several lecturers could take on the role of becoming ‘flexible learning experts’, and then mentor their peers. This would help with issues of content/discipline specificity. A second respondent indicated that there was ‘not much point in doing an inservice course three or four months ahead of time and learning some skills and being expected to use them later on’ without practising them in the interim. Rather, there was need for an ‘ongoing process of support’, and ‘assistance when needed’.
59
The respondents whose projects were team-based spoke very highly of the value of that approach. Particular benefits noted included: •
the opportunity that multiple perspectives provided to develop the concept within the project’s development, so that the project outcomes were better than the original plans envisioned;
•
the opportunity to ‘learn from other people’s experiences’ so that you ‘don’t reinvent the wheel’; and
•
the need to plan carefully—a need that was highlighted in a team situation, where particular contributions had to be scheduled to fit into other planning schedules.
The point here is that the very push towards more team-based approaches to teaching associated with the move to flexible modes of delivery represents a significant informal opportunity for professional development.
Supporting ‘the Move’ It is clear that support can be provided in a number of forms and to differing levels, and that the optimum ‘mix’ of levels and forms will vary from context to context. The important dimensions of support appear to include the following: •
Policy—in the form of clear statements about both the nature and direction of ‘the move’, and the limits of financial or in-kind support for any particular practice. Earlier comments suggested that academics prefer policies which both allow for flexible approaches to ‘the move’, and which are focused on supporting high-quality teaching and learning. There is also a need to articulate faculty initiatives with the larger policy and mission statements of the university.
•
Staff development—to prepare for ‘the move’ in general, and to assist academics in the design and implementation of particular responses. This needs to address issues of role as well as more ‘technical matters’.
•
Support staff—to provide complementary expertise to that of the academics as teaching moves from traditional to more technology-based settings. That expertise is needed at both the design and implementation phases.
•
Infrastructure—in terms of both CIT resources and procedures. CIT infrastructure needs to be both accessible and operationally reliable in ways which are comparable to the accessibility and reliability of the more traditional teaching and learning contexts. Procedures need to facilitate flexibility and improvement wherever possible.
What is also clear is that the provision of this support within the context of collaborative activity is also an ‘optimising condition’. While individuals may choose to work relatively independently, it is clear that teaching within more technologised contexts is increasingly a responsibility shared between academics and support staff. That is, the roles of both groups are changing as academic work
60
becomes more team-based. All team members need to become more appreciative of the expertise, responsibilities and constraints of the other members, and develop the skills that their new roles demand, including skills in collaboration. Achieving this more collaborative context may be assisted through the establishment of liaison roles—to be occupied by ‘someone who understands what it is to be an academic and who has a sound understanding of teaching and learning principles’—to provide moral support, feedback and a more effective interface between different interest groups. While the move to adopt flexible approaches is seen by some respondents as inevitable, they suggest that strategies to raise awareness of the issue could involve presenting flexible approaches in ways which dramatise the starkness of the alternatives. For example, lecturing to oversized classes in face-to-face mode is seen as indefensible in most cases by comparison with resource-based approaches. Support could be targeted on promoting divergently flexible responses to the challenges faced by faculties. Other ‘targets’ for support in terms of the introduction of more flexible practices include the desirability of: •
assuring academics that they will continue to be able to exercise significant levels of personal control over their teaching practices;
•
providing support in the form of practical demonstrations for academics; and
•
providing clearer definitions of flexible modes of delivery within the university or in faculties and providing ‘more direction from the university level (Vice-Chancellor and Deputy Vice-Chancellor) about what it means’.
In relation to the last point, many respondents suggested that it would be very useful if their university clarified how it intended to position itself in relation to other providers. Sceptics believe that the ‘flexible learning idea is going to hit the rocks’ because the market is being flooded with ‘packages’, and it is not a popular way of receiving instructional learning skills—with most students preferring faceto-face contact.
Looking to the Future Some respondents perceive that ‘universities have stagnated’, and the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery represents ‘a breath of fresh air’. Thus any move to decrease the flexibility of the practices that have been developed would be seen negatively. As one academic stated, ‘I want to arouse students to have a great love affair with knowing, be it in an actual campus with buildings, or in virtual space’. To her surprise, she found this was possible in both settings. Her concern was that academic managers’ priority was to ‘bring in as many [students] as you can, and make sure they get a credential’, and they were thus tending to actively support the creation of a climate in which her priorities were seen as elitist and/or indulgent.
61
Respondents valued interactive communication with students and believed that, while face-to-face teaching should never be completely replaced, it could be ‘better used more sparingly’. The face-to-face environment and the enthusiasm of the teacher were seen as difficult to replicate. There was considerable fear that concerns over costs would lead to a loss of interactivity, in either face-to-face teaching or in more technologically mediated forms. In a sense, this was a fear of prioritising information delivery over other aspects of education. The corresponding hope was that, ‘One day I’ll give a lecture to people all over Australia and they’ll talk back to me.’ The strategy of supporting innovators may risk the development of a ‘them and us’ view of innovation. It has contributed to the visibility of some technology-based innovation in ways which may risk undervaluing other forms of innovation, and diverting attention from the educational rationales for and evaluations of those innovations. It would be preferable if the faculty/school managers could protect their reform agenda through exercising internal control over project funding, and focusing the attention of all academics on the teaching and learning principles which underlie that agenda.
Conclusion The interviewed academics held mixed views as to the future of flexible modes of delivery, technology and academic practices. While flexible modes of delivery broaden teaching and learning possibilities, there was a sense of pessimism concerning the rationale for the move because it had been advocated during a time of economic rationalism and budgetary restraints—‘One can’t deliver quality teaching and learning on such tight budgets.’ Thus there was a sense that the move had been motivated more by a concern to ‘teach more for less’ than by a concern to develop modes of delivery which promoted higher quality teaching and learning. There is an overarching concern that flexible learning is developing in a piecemeal fashion—a view shared with interviewees in management and support roles. This points to the need for stronger leadership on this issue, although this needs to be exercised in terms of providing clear frameworks within which individual lecturers retained considerable academic autonomy rather than in terms of commitment to particular modes of flexible delivery. A consistent theme within the interviews was that academics are being asked to do more, and consequently have to set priorities on the ways they use their time. In this context, some tend to set their priorities in response to their perceptions of the university’s priorities, which are seen by them as overwhelmingly focused on matters of research productivity—in other words, publication. As a result, some academics see no incentive to commit extra time to preparing flexible learning strategies or resources—indeed, they believe that to do so would be to send the wrong signals to the university. For those respondents who had set priorities which focus on teaching, none mentioned any expectation of being rewarded by the university. For them, the rewards were more personal, and likely to come from (and in the context of) their interactions with students.
62
63
5
Views of the Academic Managers This chapter explores the perspectives of some of those who are managing the moves to adopt flexible modes of delivery, and to use communication and information technologies in the three sites. As indicated in Chapter 3, this chapter draws on the views of seventeen individuals who were employed in a number of roles and locations, both within and beyond the particular sites of investigation. It draws on the views of pro-vice chancellors, deans of faculties, heads of school, directors of support units, a policy adviser and an educational consultant.
Rationale for ‘the Move’ The respondents were very aware that higher education in general, and their institution and/or area of responsibility in particular, were under pressure to adopt more flexible practices as a result of: •
increased numbers of students, and an associated increase in the diversity (= needs) of the student population;
•
increased competition between higher education providers, including international competitors; and
•
increasing sophistication and capacity of technology to support teaching and learning.
The particular interpretation given to these pressures tended to reflect the role and prior experience of each respondent. In all cases, this interpretation gave rise to a focus on particular aspects of the institution’s activities. For example, while some explored these issues largely in terms of information technology, others explored them in terms of responsiveness and access, while a third group explored them in terms of policy and program development. Thus what tended to emerge were a number of voices speaking about similar issues in dissimilar ways, and with dissimilar intentions. This lack of unity was reflected in the perception that, while both institutions have a well-deserved reputation for high quality and innovative teaching, neither had clearly identified a ‘direction it’s heading in’ in relation to the pressures noted above. For example, the work of the Faculty of Education in promoting flexible modes of delivery as a way of accessing off-campus students was at odds with senior management’s view that Queensland University of Technology was ‘still an on-campus university’.
64
It was clear that each site had its own rationale for its practices. For example, the move to ‘flexible modes of delivery’ was spoken of by the Education managers primarily in terms of two issues: market competition and access. The faculty is the largest provider of postgraduate and in-service education to the educational sector in Queensland. It seeks to maintain that position, and the move to provide all of its postgraduate course offerings through flexible modes of delivery is seen as providing a competitive advantage, and also as a demonstration of its capacity to respond to market forces. The last point is significant for several reasons. The ‘market’ for this faculty is dominated by one employer—the state Department of Education—which had set out its expectations of providers of educational services in 1993. Those expectations included reference to flexible modes of delivery—amongst them, work-based delivery. However, the expectations of the Department of Education were not pivotal to this move, given that it directly sponsors a relatively small number of clients for the faculty. On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of postgraduate students are full-time teachers and part-time students. While many are employed in settings which make regular attendance at evening classes possible, there is a perception that a significant potential market could be reached through more flexible modes of delivery. Thus the move to adopt a flexible mode of delivery is seen as part of an attempt to ‘grow the market’ and provide access to a more diverse population for postgraduate courses in education. Several additional reasons for the move were mentioned. Collectively, they can be seen as representing a belief that flexible modes of delivery are pedagogically sound—‘a good way to deliver subjects’. While these reasons were advanced in terms of a justification for the move, it was indicated that the move was preceded by an active exploration of the possibilities of particular strategies within several schools. That is, the move can be seen as being led by both external factors— market share and access—and internal factors related to the development of new CIT-based strategies and the exploration of their pedagogical implications. On the other hand, within the School of Law, the move to develop more flexible modes of teaching appears to be based on personal experiences of both the academic managers and particular members of staff. In turn, there is a recognition that this move both consolidates and develops the school’s commitment to teaching and learning. Associated with this recognition is an awareness of the significance of (school) culture to the valuing of teaching and learning. The managers see their investment in the area as helping to both put (and keep) teaching and learning on the agenda as the school balances a range of expectations. It is through these processes of agenda-setting and nurturing innovations that the managers influence the school’s culture, which, in turn, is seen as a most important focus for their leadership.
65
Perceptions of ‘Flexibility’ It is clear that these managers did not have a limited set of practices in mind when they discussed flexible modes of delivery. Instead, there is a sense that they saw this issue in strategic and relatively complex ways. The issue is strategic in terms of market share and access. It is seen as a signal to external audiences that an institution is both responsive to community expectations and flexible enough to respond to particular concerns. It is also seen as a signal to an internal audience— the teaching staff—that the institution needs to seriously explore the opportunities offered by CIT, particularly in terms of teaching effectiveness and cost efficiencies. Having declared a preference to avoid ‘mechanised versions of open learning’ and to ‘try new approaches’, there seems to be some tension between those who hold a more evolutionary view (those with a focus on ‘people issues’) and those with a more revolutionary view (although that term was never used or perhaps even intended) of the move. For the former there is a strong sense of satisfaction with approaches which have cautiously and/or enthusiastically built on existing strengths and capacities, and that ‘policy followed the practice’, ‘which was as it should be’. For the latter there is a level of disappointment with the conservative response of the internal audience, and with a failure to develop policies that would more actively help to achieve that revolution. The linking of ‘flexible’ with ‘distance’ was a cause of considerable tension and frustration to most managers. A number of respondents who had considerable experience of ODE in both teaching and supporting roles expressed the view that, too often, academics responded to ‘flexible initiatives’ on the assumption that these represented a move towards ‘distance education’. That is, there is a concern that this experience-based perceptual linkage is inhibiting the move away from more traditional ODE modes of delivery to more technologically mediated approaches. It is interesting to note that frustration with this linkage was obvious in all interviews, irrespective of whether ‘the move’ was focused on off- or oncampus teaching. As the interviews with the Education managers moved from their reasons for the move to the issue of flexibility, there was a shift from concerns with markets to more educational concerns. Here there was a strong sense of a desire to distinguish flexible modes of delivery from the more traditional face-to-face approaches—‘The delivery doesn’t make it open. Flexibility and the different sorts of learning that come out of it make it open.’ Flexibility is seen in terms of the reduction of impediments—‘You put as few hurdles or difficulties in the road of the learner in choosing or selecting the particular mode or approach to learning they wish to do. For example, if they want to read books they can. You’ve got alternatives available.’ There was also an intention that the move should involve the adoption of practices which were different from some traditional ODE practices, but which allowed teaching staff to build on their best practices in both face-to-face and ODE traditions.
66
Thus there is a sense of their concern to ‘acknowledge capabilities’, sitting uncomfortably with a desire to encourage staff to ‘see open learning as a new way of learning and a new way of teaching rather than just a delivery mechanism’. While this concern to balance demands was most obvious in the responses of those who were most directly involved in managing ‘the people’ side of this move, there was a shared perception that there had been some over-estimation of both the familiarity of staff with the philosophy of open learning, and their capacity to focus on issues beyond those of delivery—that is, on learning. The notion of ‘removal of impediments’ had significance for academic managers’ perceptions of the relationship between flexibility and technology in both Education and Humanities. ‘High-tech’ versions (the nature of which were largely unexplored in the interviews) of the latter tended to be referred to more as impediments than as solutions. A number of factors contributed to this view, including perceptions that such technology: •
is costly to establish and maintain;
•
does not necessarily lead to better learning outcomes, and can lead to ‘impoverished learning ... like computer based education’;
•
is prone to ‘systems failure’; and
•
can be extremely demanding on staff—it can be a perceived threat, and consume enormous amounts of time and energy.
On the other hand, the ‘removal of impediments’ was not seen as involving ‘a free choice for students’ (or staff). These respondents were very aware of the limitations on flexibility and particularly the responsibilities of academics to the university. That is, there was little discussion of this issue in terms of ‘client’ or student ‘centredness’. Nor was there any sense that the move to adopt flexible modes of delivery invited a fundamental rethink of on-campus teaching and learning practices in these sites. Within the School of Law, the personal experiences of teaching in both oncampus and distance modes have led to considerable change in the managers’ views of teaching over the last five to six years. All respondents tended to share the view that good teaching is synonymous with good learning, and that these are most likely to occur in an environment that allows for teacher–student and student–student interactivity —‘where one can talk, argue, criticise and analyse’. These views are based on their experiences of both face-to-face and distance education. In the latter context, all have developed an appreciation that ‘good teaching is not just about delivery of materials—this doesn’t promote learning’, and also that teaching materials have to be designed to ‘pose questions and encourage students to see the opportunities and the avenues they can explore’.
67
At this site, flexibility is about developing a range of learning environments, not about focusing on a particular subset of those possibilities and excluding the remainder. One relatively succinct view of flexible learning is that it involves: learning opportunities and strategies provided for learners which allow a range of things to inform their learning experiences and, in that sense, flexible learning includes external as well as internal students, and internal students with offcampus as well as on-campus resources and support. Further, technology has the potential to have a large role in overcoming some of the geographic issues in opening up the possibilities of flexible learning.
However, there is a sense that support is focused on the replacement of largegroup lecturing, and the retention of small group face-to-face teaching. While ‘the rapid advance of technology has forced everything else out’ there is little sense yet of its role in the teaching and learning area—that ‘sense’ could only emerge if people actively explored its potential. At an industrial level, the issue of enterprise bargaining is seen as adding complexity, and for that reason, having the potential to make change more difficult to achieve. On the other hand, one respondent indicated a belief that technology and teachers were not in competition. Rather, they should be seen as mutually reinforcing educational resources. Consistent with this belief, there was an agreed view that technology would not replace face-to-face teaching. For example, one respondent indicated that if a particular technology did not seem to be the appropriate means of delivery of the curriculum, then it should not be used—it should be ‘confidently abandoned’.
Managing ‘the Move’ Given their role, the managers’ perceptions of how this move should be handled are very significant, and reveal some interesting issues. For most respondents, there was a recognition of change being difficult to achieve within a university, largely because they believed that ‘power lies with the people at the grass roots’. In spite of this, there was general agreement on the need for greater leadership in the policy area. Other suggestions to promote the adoption of more flexible practices included: •
supporting those who are most motivated to adopt flexible approaches;
•
encouraging faculties to employ advocates with relevant practical expertise to assist staff;
•
if expertise is centrally located, ensuring that every project has a project leader from within that centre; and
•
ensuring that support areas can provide both educational and technical support for projects.
One respondent suggested that some key decision-making bodies were overly focused on procedural matters, and insufficiently focused on matters of direction
68
and policy. The perception is that, while this process has appropriately evolved from collegial processes, too often those bodies were avoiding important strategic issues. Clearly universities have to manage a finite pool of resources. The move to adopt any innovation has to be seen in terms of reorganising priorities, and also in terms of the period of time for which that innovation will require supplementary support to ensure its survival. Given their role as managers of resources, and the perception that the most important resource was the energy and capacities of the teaching staff, these respondents provided a range of insights into how they understood the competing demands on those resources. There was a strong awareness that staff energy and enthusiasm had to be carefully managed. On the one hand, individual members of staff tended to be responsible for specific innovations. On the other, there was a need to help staff learn from each other, and from the experiences of teachers in other settings. In other words, there was a need to avoid reinventing the wheel. The leadership of managers was seen as important in terms of the exploration of possibilities. There was a strong perception that the funding of innovative projects should be targeted in terms of at least two issues. Funding should be linked to faculty priorities, rather than simply inviting ‘people to put their hands up individually’. Projects should also have teamwork built in from their inception, drawing on the expertise of academics, staff developers, instructional designers and related support staff. The role of support staff tended to be seen as crucial to this move. Respondents indicated varying levels of satisfaction with the support provided. There was a sense that the underlying issue was one of control—where resources were controlled by the faculty, then they would be relatively easy to mobilise. Where options required the redeployment of resources, and the faculty was in a client relationship with the provider, then some experiences were described as an ‘absolute shambles’. There were also concerns about the responsibilities of particular organisational units. The identification of who is responsible for funding the development of resource materials, and who is responsible for funding the implementation of teaching programs based on those resources becomes more problematic as the more traditional binary of on-campus and external participation gives way to ‘flexible modes of delivery’. It is clear that many managers did not see financial issues as central to their intentions. There were several reasons for this. First, some tended to promote relatively ‘low-tech’ responses, relying heavily on the use of text-based resources. Within this approach, there was some avoidance of strategies which were heavily dependent on the more costly lecturer–student interaction. Second, where projects required significant financial support for infrastructure, or implementation finance was provided through special funding, those projects were advanced only when that funding was secured—that is, demand was managed. Third, there was a
69
strong perception that the largest cost involved staff expertise and time. These people were aware of the actual cost of salaries and associated costs, and for them sums of tens of thousands of dollars were seen in terms of million-dollar staffing budgets. There is a tendency for academics to be seen, and see themselves, as either traditionalists or experimentalists. However, the use of these terms belies the degree of flexibility involved in either approach. That is, it is clear that some see considerable innovation and flexibility associated with traditionalist approaches. Indeed, as with any other binary, the terms tend to privilege one approach over the other. This distinction points to the significance of the issue of balance. One respondent spoke in terms of a web of issues, and faculty staff as ‘complex evolving entities’—‘It’s a case of monitoring [the web] at various points. The way the web is pulled one way or another doesn’t necessarily destroy the web and so one keeps monitoring it.’ It is clear that this respondent sees the role of management in terms of monitoring ‘where those pulls and pushes are coming from’ and then taking ‘action to try and balance it up in the best interests of the whole’. Further, it is important to consider and persuade others about the way in which things ‘fit together’.
Concerns about ‘the Move’ The respondents recognised that time and money influence the ways in which alternative modes of delivery are thought about. For this reason, support should be used to promote divergently flexible responses to the challenges faced by faculties. Beyond issues of development, monitoring of outcomes was seen as an essential support function. This focus on quality assurance was seen to require different kinds of control and organisation to maintain the quality of resource materials to support flexible learning. An issue that was raised on a number of occasions involved the need to monitor student response. It seems there is a need to develop more comprehensive strategies in this area, and to encourage staff to learn from that feedback as a way of identifying future initiatives as well as evaluating current ones. That is, there was an underlying concern that staff tended to be selective in (non-)attending to more negative feedback. Unfortunately, this issue was not explored in terms of internal staff appraisal mechanisms which could be seen as tending to reinforce that selectivity. There was a strong sense that respondents believed academic staff were, in general, under-prepared to respond to the challenges that the move to adopt flexible modes of delivery presented. Suggestions to improve that situation tended to focus on providing opportunities for lecturers to explore options, including visits to other sites to examine ‘exemplars of different practices in operation’. There was also a suggestion that senior managers were similarly under-prepared for these challenges. One respondent indicated a belief that the pro-vice
70
chancellors, and similarly high-placed managers, should make a commitment to flexible modes of delivery—a need for ‘someone up top to drive and support it otherwise it will be a real struggle’. Respondents raised a number of concerns about the services provided by support staff. Some focused on the lack of sufficient numbers of support staff. A more significant concern related to the nature of that support. One respondent suggested that ‘some support staff have deep-rooted preferences about what constitutes flexible learning, and the appropriate hardware/software to support it’, and went on to suggest that ‘[w]hat is required is an approach that reflects the same kind of openness to different viewpoints and different inputs [as is expected of academics]’. Here the issue is related to the differing perspective and expertise involved in teams including academics and support staff. The implication is that there is a need to explore underlying values and intentions in addition to the more procedural issues related to the design and delivery of educational programs.
Views on Technology While computer-based approaches to teaching and learning are supported, particularly through university-sourced competitive funding, there is a concern that in some instances this has led to the adornment of rather low-level practices. For example, the conversion of relatively linear and unchallenging strategies to a computer-based education (CBE) environment is seen as contrary to the sort of quality teaching and learning environment that these respondents are seeking. That is, there is a concern to avoid using technology simply to automate sophisticated versions of the old questions and answers—‘here’s your multichoice; we’ll now put bells and whistles in place’. The preference is to ensure that initiatives result in problem-based learning or provide an interactive process requiring the learner to think about something rather than simply respond. On the other hand, one respondent commented on the development of computer technology more as a tool rather than a teaching method. For him, technology was seen as a resource and research tool linking students into databases as opposed to it being used to teach and therefore reduce staffing costs. There was significant ambiguity over the strategy of supporting individual projects. Clearly financial support is not unlimited, and will not be ongoing. Thus there is a risk that the projects might just be ‘a series of one-offs’, unable to survive once the special funding is withdrawn. As such, they can put at risk larger programs if they fail. Allied with this concern was a preference to support projects which addressed curriculum as well as learning issues, and which were developed and owned by teams rather than by individuals.
71
A theme that emerged in some interviews was the perception that Queensland University of Technology, as an institution, has made a commitment to CBE as a preferred technology for promoting flexible engagement with educational materials. Several advantages of CBE were noted, including: •
increased flexibility for both students and lecturers in terms of attendance;
•
increased quality of interaction between students—as a result of student feedback, the CBE unit tends to promote group-based interactions with the technology, although individual interaction is not discouraged; and
•
increased quality in the remaining use of face-to-face interactions.
Queensland University of Technology has a relatively long history of using CBE, of learning from student feedback on that use, and of ensuring that quality control is built into the nature of the support provided through CBE. This represents, to some extent, a significant disjunction with the Faculty of Education’s approach. While some respondents were comfortable with the multiplicity of approaches, one saw the faculty’s critical response to CBE as ‘really getting up everyone else’s nose’. Whatever the source, it was difficult to deny that tension existed as a result of both campus and discipline allegiances. What was not clear was that respondents shared a view of the role of CBE in teaching and learning. One respondent indicated that the CBE approach was used essentially to provide tutorial level support, and that it was not seen as a costeffective replacement for large-group lectures. On the other hand, another suggested that it was intended to result in students spending less time in lectures, freeing up time and staff to allow for increased amounts of small-group interactions between lecturers and students. In this scenario, other technologies (print, videos, audio tapes, tutorial disks) were seen as providing the lecture information. It was somewhat troubling to find such divergent views expressed by relatively senior managers. Both went on to suggest that an implication of their view would be a decreasing need for tutors, and an increasing need for staff with instructional design expertise—with screen rather than print as the medium for delivering their designs. Computer based education (CBE) was acknowledged as expensive in terms of the infrastructure requirements, but given Queensland University of Technology’s commitment to it (and the fact that this expenditure had largely been incurred), these respondents appeared to see themselves largely in the role of advocating its increasing use, and increasing the quality of that use. One advocate raised a concern about the availability of CBE-type support for off-campus students, suggesting that while on-campus students received extensive infrastructure and personnel support for CBE use, off-campus students in the faculties of Education, Law and Health did not. Rather, they tended to be supported by the Open Learning Unit, which was seen as understaffed and functioning largely as a ‘printbased post box’.
72
There was a perception that CBE-based versions of flexibility created their own interest because of the visibility of the practices and products. In a sense, this visibility tends to invite a focus on the ‘product’ or technology rather than the teaching and learning practices associated with it. For that reason it is possible that many innovations were more about ‘repackaging’ than improvement in teaching and learning. As a result, some respondents expressed a concern that some academics feel ‘under siege and their practice is being examined not on the basis of good teaching but whether it has all the bells and whistles’. This is the issue of balance, and the perception that—for some at least—the strategy of supporting projects is seen as an implicit threat to more traditional practices, in addition to being an explicit endorsement of ‘experimentation’.
Looking to the Future No one pretended to have a crystal ball, but there was a sense that ‘if we drop the ball our institution will become increasingly unattractive’ to students by comparison with other universities. The possibility that things might not change— a possibility canvassed by several respondents—was seen as enormously threatening to the institution. All saw the move to flexible modes of delivery as both a positive and ongoing commitment, leading to ‘excellent growth and development in a lot of people, personally quite rewarding inwardly and worth smiling about’. It has led to increased staff and student satisfaction, although there have been instances of individual disappointment and frustration. Thus most managers seemed confident that the move was paying off, and that there was considerable potential for the move to continue on its evolutionary path. Academics’ practices are changing, even if the pace of that change is less than might be desired. The issue of technology seems unlikely to become focal to that evolution in the near future. What also emerged is that the future is seen in terms of an increasing need for flexibility, including a broadening of the focus from delivery issues. For example, more flexible approaches to assessment were seen as essential. A related perception was that decisions about flexibility have to continue to be made ‘at the grass roots level’—in other words, that policy (= standardisation) could not prescribe direction, as that would run counter to the very outcome that was sought. Interestingly, one respondent expressed concern that the move to flexibility may generate problems if it succeeded. That is, if the approach allows increased access for off-campus participation, the site might ‘get swamped due to the 4000 students who would want to access it’. In terms of technology, it was suggested that the focus should change from what technologies are being used to how they are being used. (This similarity to Morrison’s [1995] distinction between what and how issues, noted in Chapter 1, is quite striking.) For example, one respondent argued that the key issue was ‘flexibility’, not ‘technology’, and that the former required a paradigm shift to a focus on the customer, including much greater use of student evaluations. On the other hand, the use of flexibility to provide off-campus access to courses by
73
geographically remote students was viewed ambivalently, given that this was not seen as a revenue-neutral exercise. However, the use of communication technologies to allow on-campus students to access CBE materials and support from home was seen as a very high priority. In terms of geographically remote students, print was likely to continue to be the most important medium for information delivery. Several respondents perceived a need for greater integration in the provision of CIT support services to academic staff. Those services were seen as fragmented, and perhaps too focused on CIT at the expense of the learner and the teacher. The respondents who were most directly involved in supporting academic staff noted a degree of threat associated with the response of many academics to the move to introduce more flexible strategies, including the increased use of technology. There was a sense that strategies and technologies associated with this move were evolving much more readily than were academics’ and managers’ capacities to incorporate them. As a result, it was felt that beliefs were too often based on negative, but outdated, impressions. It seems that several of these respondents were themselves caught in this experience-driven perception block. Those nearest ‘the cutting edge’ seemed most enthusiastic about CIT, and in several cases were most sensitive to the threat that this ‘edge’ posed for/to nonknowers/believers. On the other hand, these same respondents expressed the greatest frustration with the speed (and appropriateness) of policy development. As a result of this frustration, they tended to be focusing their efforts on influencing the decisions of the academics with whom they collaborated. The issue of quality control was raised by several respondents. The move to locate teaching resources in some permanent form was seen as assisting in this matter but, by implication, the development of these resources needed some form of monitoring to ensure that certain standards were met. Simply generating a package of resources would not, of itself, guarantee that the resources were of high quality. There was reference to increasing attempts to procure and/or adapt materials and/or strategies, and less of a focus on their production—that is, a move away from a ‘craft approach’ to developing flexible technologies. This applied to both the instructional materials and to management strategies associated with increasing use of CIT. Beyond concerns with information technology, there was a perception that the future would involve improvements in institutions’ communication networks. This would allow increasing use of communication technologies to facilitate student–student and student–lecturer interaction, and offcampus access to campus-based information. In terms of the change process, these respondents acknowledged that change takes time. One indicated that it would take five years to achieve any significant change, and ten to fifteen years to achieve more dramatic changes. If accurate, these sorts of time frames suggest that the gap between the changing expectations of the higher education sector, and its capacity to respond, will remain for a considerable time, and the resulting pressure for change may become even more pronounced in
74
the short term. In a sense, the pressure for change has up until now come from outside the institution—technology providers, the community and competitors. As academics respond to this pressure at very different rates—with the innovators receiving most institutional support—students may become increasingly important sources of pressure for change as they experience the discontinuity of flexibility in some subjects, and inflexibility in others. Managing student perceptions may, in turn, become one of the major challenges for academic managers.
Conclusion As with respondents in other roles, there was a sense that the managers were most explicit in identifying strengths and weaknesses in the work of others. Their own contributions tended to remain relatively invisible to them, or at least unacknowledged in our interviews. Thus the issue of their commitment, as academic managers, to the energising and managing of that strategy seemed undervalued by them. It is clear that the move to adopt flexible modes of delivery involves a move away from a whole range of relative certainties. The positive outcome is that this ‘unfreezing’ allows for the exploration of an array of possibilities. The negative outcomes relate more to issues of the loss of certainty, and the need to deal with that. In the literature on change, much is made of the notion of influence as an alternative to power. However, for these individuals to exert their influence, they need to be able to engage in conversation with their colleagues. What is most obvious is the lack of a shared language in these sets of transcripts. Thus there is a need for each organisational element to work towards a clear statement of what flexible learning means to it, and to articulate those interpretations with other organisational elements. This clarity has to be achieved in ways that respect, and even celebrate, the range of possibilities that the term implies, and that current practices model. There is a strong belief that the key to continuing the exploration of flexible modes of delivery rests with the capacity of the institution and its elements to become learning organisations in their own right, and to maintain a balance in terms of their priorities and commitments. The challenge here seems to be to maintain the organisation’s capacity to both seek and respond to feedback, and to ‘keep everyone on board’ through allowing for a continuing process of clarification of intentions and strategies. In this context, the strategy of change through empowerment of individuals can become problematic, particularly for those who think they are closer to the oars than to the captain.
75
6
Views of the Support Staff This chapter explores the perspectives of ten members of staff at two of the sites—Education and Humanities—who provide support services to academics involved in the moves to adopt more flexible modes of delivery, and to use communication and information technologies. In the main, the respondents were employed in support units located within the ‘information services’ sections rather than academic sections of the two institutions. The respondents had a variety of roles, including supporting students (librarian, external studies liaison), supporting staff in the production of resource materials (instructional design, educational television [ETV] production) and providing technology support (audio-visual [AV] and information technology [IT] services).
Views of ‘the Move’ What was very clear is that these people saw flexibility in terms of their professional roles, and from this perspective they often revealed greater clarity about some issues than did the academics who they were supporting. Unlike the academics, they were not members of a faculty, giving them both wider responsibilities and allowing them, to varying degrees, a certain detachment from the actual necessities to ‘deliver’ the resulting teaching design. Given this distance and detachment, questions of policy and purpose were frequently raised by them. In terms of purpose, concerns with communication and a student-centred philosophy framed most of the support staff’s responses to flexible modes of delivery, particularly given that there were few procedural policies in place. Support staff believed that these concerns/values were not necessarily shared by faculty managers or academics. The most important issue for the support staff involved a need for a ‘first things first’ approach in terms of developing both a university policy and an infrastructure capacity. The implementation of the ‘first things first’ approach included a need to establish a database which identified different categories of students and their specific needs. There was a strong perception that key people in the university were unaware of what was going on within it in the area of flexible learning. An institutional (university) culture biased towards on-campus full-time students was clearly identified, with a related (negative) perception that there was little infrastructure in place to cater for the specific needs of distance/off-campus students—‘The whole structure of the institution is set up to cater for on-campus students.’ This perception was strongest for staff whose prior responsibilities and/or experiences were primarily grounded in ODE. There was a sense that this cultural bias meant that neither administration nor academic staff were open to suggestions from these support staff.
76
If institutions are to adopt more flexible modes of delivery, then academic staff require support in the forms of both time and skill development. A perception existed that the faculties had moved too quickly into flexible modes of delivery due to lack of knowledge and to assumptions that the move would be ‘quick and easy’. More specific concerns included: •
uncertainty related to the possibility of changes in university and faculty managers and/or organisational restructuring;
•
a perceived danger of replicating the ‘annexing’ of academics who had become very involved in flexible modes of delivery, particularly if those modes became consistent with more traditional ODE practices, as had happened in the past;
•
the view that teachers whose face-to-face teaching (or research) was seen as excellent may be unfairly expected (by colleagues and managers) to be capable of reproducing that excellence in more flexible modes of delivery without additional assistance or expertise; and
•
the time it took to develop a productive working relationship with academics, a relationship that allowed problem-focused collaboration. This type of collaboration had been developed with only a limited number of academics.
Rationale for ‘the Move’ Our perception of the significance of both the current role and the prior experiences of each person in shaping their perspective on flexible modes of delivery, and academics’ practices was strongly reinforced by encounters with the diversity of perspectives represented within the support staff group. Most respondents saw their work in terms of their prior experience in supporting distance education students. That is, they drew on their experiences of working for/with distance education students as the reference for their support for academic staff. One feature which tended to be common to these respondents was their concern for students—whether they be seen as ‘clients’ or ‘audience’. Thus there was a strong impression that their rationale for their involvement in supporting flexible modes of delivery was equated with a move to ‘studentcentred’ approaches to teaching. There was a sense that, for some, the anchoring of their understanding of the concept of ‘flexibility’ in prior experiences of ODE had the potential to create tension in their support work. For example, one respondent noted that it: is not something applicable to distance education only. It occurs in on-campus programs as well as off-campus programs. The distinction between on-campus students and off-campus students is becoming less relevant.
77
However, because the actual focus for most of their support work was on offcampus programs, their potential to contribute to increasing the flexibility of oncampus teaching appeared not to have been part of their agendas, or those of the academics with whom they worked. As a result, there was a perception that the initiative of flexible modes of delivery was primarily an extension of the existing external studies activities—‘the same animal given a more up-to-date name’. Thus there seems to have been an unstated pressure to see ‘the move’ in terms of ODE issues, even though for some this did not represent their ideal. Nor does there seem to be any evidence within the responses that this ‘ideal’ was advocated within the context of the provision of their support. On the other hand, the respondents whose roles were related to the provision of CIT services tended not to have this focus on ODE, or even students as clients. Rather, there was a strong impression that their work was focused on the academic staff as clients, and on the on-campus provision of service to those academics and their students. The academics and the physical infrastructure through which they delivered their service to them were on campus. The fact that the infrastructure and services for which they were responsible were intended to facilitate communication and/or information exchange between lecturers and students irrespective of the geographical location of those students seemed not to be an issue. Thus, while these people were providing access to a range of the communications technologies that were fundamental to the achievement of the ideal flexible mode of delivery described above, there was little sense that they distinguished between on- and off-campus students, or the teaching practices, in the ways reflected in the earlier discussion. Most respondents saw a potentially positive relationship between the use of ‘flexible modes of delivery’ and the provision of high-quality, cost-effective education to all who sought it. They tended to see the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery as fundamentally associated with the move to mass higher education. There were at least two bases for this association—cost and access— both seen positively. ODE and CIT practices provide a means to provide higher education ‘as cheaply as possible’ through large enrolments. They also allow for institutions to reach more students, increasing both access and the number of enrolments in any particular subject. Related to these outcomes was a perception that use of those strategies would increase the likelihood of students receiving high-quality course materials. That is, the move to adopt flexible modes of delivery was seen as providing an opportunity to improve the quality of higher education.
Design of ‘their Move’ There was a perception that the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery requires fundamentally different practices on the part of academics, differences which are largely misunderstood and/or unanticipated by them. For example, the move from face-to-face to flexible mode is seen quite clearly as a move from a personal to an impersonal mode of teaching. Under the latter conditions, the
78
requirements for planning and ‘getting it right’ are far more demanding than in face-to-face settings, where students can ask questions, allowing lecturers to ‘back fill’ omitted information. The necessary level of planning and explicitness was seen as under-appreciated by most academics, and this was a source of some tension with and anxiety for the support staff. It is clear that some support staff had a view of the nature and the purpose of the ‘different’ practices that they associated with flexible modes of delivery. One view was that a ‘good package’ would consist of a variety of media—print, audiotapes, video—with supplementary interactive elements (tele-tutorials, telconferencing, email). The use of particular interactive modes would be tailored to the size of enrolments—for example, teleconferencing is a medium not suited to large numbers. The purpose of the interactive elements would be: •
to personalise the experience;
•
overcome the alienation of distance between teacher and student;
•
clarify students’ queries; and
•
give students a sense of feeling part of the university culture.
This design is consistent with Caladine’s (1995: 10) description of thirdgeneration interactive multimedia distance education. As such, it can be seen as offering significant opportunities for supporting high-quality learning. Support staff expressed considerable concern in relation to the timing of their initial involvement in projects. In an ideal world, they would have been involved in any development exercise at the earliest possible stage—that is, while strategies were being conceptualised rather than after they had been decided upon. It is clear that these respondents believed they have the potential to make a very significant contribution to helping academics clarify their intentions and to consider the value of alternative strategies in terms of those intentions. Thus the perception was of academics as having greatest expertise in terms of both their content knowledge and face-to-face teaching strategies, while the support staff have expertise in terms of how to use a range of media to provide impersonal but effective support for learning. Unless the latter expertise is accessed sufficiently early in the design process, decisions based on inappropriate expertise could be taken—decisions which are likely to compromise the value of the resulting work to students. One respondent’s version of this ideal was summarised as follows: A team of people would produce the package. Team expertise would include the user-education coordinator, academic staff, instructional designers and technical personnel in computer-based education. A range of mediums would be necessary to meet external students’ learning needs, such as standard forms, written form, videos, CD-ROM, interactive computing. The role of the academics would be in an advisory capacity, providing expertise related to teaching modes, teaching styles, learning styles and setting out of material and content. The role of support staff would be integral to the development of the material. Given the importance of students learning how to learn, acquisition of information literacy skills is a necessity.
Supporting ‘the Move’
79
Support staff expressed a range of opinions on the support they needed, and on the support they could offer. In terms of the latter, technology was focal to a number of discussions. The use of a wider range of CIT was not considered highly desirable at this stage, due to the grassroots work yet to be undertaken, and the high cost of such technology—universities do not have the resources to produce the necessary high-quality resources. Moreover, print-based learning was seen as the most flexible mode of delivery. It was envisaged that years of work lie ahead to establish basic systems, the reality being that some faculties have ‘gone out on a limb, trying to do too much too quickly’, with student numbers rapidly increasing and inadequate resources being allocated. It was felt quite strongly that academic planning must pay much greater attention to the resource and staff development implications. Staff development was identified as being a major area of need—that is, needed by academics. Several respondents suggested an innovator-led approach to change, with faculties deliberately identifying change agents—academics who wanted to increase the flexibility of the mode/s of delivery of their subject/s—and targeting support and encouragement towards these people. None indicated any awareness of the use of this strategy in the School of Law, nor was any mention made of the similarity of this strategy to that of selectivity and concentration in the area of research funding—‘the grass is always greener elsewhere’. Respondents believed that policy changes could vastly improve service to students, especially on the administrative and developmental side. It was suggested that the whole notion of flexibility needed to be rethought in light of the current university cultures which included ‘a school term’ with academics mostly unavailable over the Christmas break—a peak work period for staff working in ODE support units. This revisits the theme that ‘it is essential to get the basics right before moving any further into flexible modes of delivery’. One respondent suggested changing the student enrolment procedures—either moving time frames forward or alternatively introducing flexible entry points (which would require continuous monitoring). They argued that flexible practices should allow multiple entry points, with students selecting the mode of participation and level of support they required. One implication of this suggestion would be that academics would need to be available to provide feedback and mark assessment items throughout the year. Respondents identified a number of issues which could either facilitate or constrain the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery. Some issues were quite predictable, while others became more obvious once they were stated. In all cases (and the same point applies to the following section), the points raised spoke both to problems and to their potential solution/s.
80
•
The need for a clear policy statement—This was seen by support staff as the key factor in facilitating or constraining Open Learning initiatives. Policy statements should establish a mechanism to help faculties plan courses. Part of this mechanism would involve an explicit linkage of practices to resources, including both staff time and funding. For example, this could involve a very simple formula along the lines of ‘if such and such a course is running, the reading list has 20 items on it, x number of students, therefore x copies are needed’.
•
Funding—Many initiatives involve the use of technologies for both delivery and discussion of course materials. There are major limitations in terms of the communications infrastructure within universities, particularly in terms of accessing the computer networks from off-campus sites via modems. In addition, the actual costs of the use of those technologies are not well understood, particularly by academics and academic managers. In addition there are real costs associated with the support of off-campus students, and those costs are not necessarily recognised in the move to flexible modes of delivery, where students may not be identified as attending as either an external or internal student. There is also a perception that, given the considerable additional effort required for academics to convert their teaching to flexible modes of delivery, successful efforts might be rewarded in some way.
•
Cost—Quality flexible education is going to involve some additional cost, at least in the initial stages. Those costs are largely associated with the construction of the teaching packages, work which must be undertaken both before the packages can be produced, and at the same time that those same academics are undertaking their normal teaching duties. In addition, there are costs associated with both the maintenance and implementation of flexible teaching programs. Some respondents questioned the degree to which institutions are committed to providing quality flexible learning experiences for students, particularly given their reluctance to fund the more interactive forms of flexible modes of teaching.
•
The need for communication at all levels − Communication is required in terms of intentions and decisions made at a faculty level, but which need to address more university-wide concerns and operations, such as libraries. − Administration data about enrolments needs to be readily available to both teaching and production staff, and to be constantly updated. Admission practices which fail to take account of the production schedules involved in delivering resource packages to students are a major source of frustration to academics, support staff and students.
81
•
Time—Academic staff are working under significant pressure, ‘which makes it difficult to take on board something that requires a rethink’. They are being required to develop whole new ways of thinking about their teaching, but are being given little support or time to do that. As a result, the production of high-quality materials and strategies is seen as extremely time-consuming and stressful for those involved in course teams.
•
Role confusion and/or ignorance—One of the most important facilitators of the move to adopt open learning modes is the opportunity that it affords to engage in collaborative work with colleagues who have complimentary expertises. As noted in Chapter 4, this provides a chance for academics to step back from their current practices and reflect on their objectives, strategies, resources, assessment tasks and so on. It also provides all team members with the opportunity to work creatively through accessing the skills and expertise of others. Indeed, one major source of frustration for support staff was that their skills were too often under-utilised through not being sought, being ignored once offered, or being called on too late in the development process. To take advantage of these opportunities, there is an over-riding need for liaison between academic staff, schools, course coordinators and any specialist support unit. There is a related need for those support units to promote the various services they offer (e.g. administrative support, staff development support). As noted above, there are concerns about collaboration between content specialists and support staff in the early stages of subject development. This may be because academics are reluctant, or simply do not realise that they need, to access support. There is a great need for academics to acknowledge that ‘I don’t know how to use this technology’—it is a problem when ‘everyone’s an expert’. Unfortunately, it was not always acknowledged by respondents that support staff might also fall into this trap. One respondent suggested that the success of teams based on quite different skills and perspectives depended on having someone who was able to ‘facilitate that mediation process, and understands the needs of the lecturers, and also understands the logistical and technical requirements of the various support services’. For example, one project was seen as exemplary because it utilised the services of a support person who had experienced the particular subject as a student, and thus was able to adopt a mediation role between other support staff and the academic staff.
•
The need for training of academic staff—While this issue was raised by a number of respondents, those whose responsibilities involved introducing academics to the use of new strategies or technologies, such as CIT services, were particularly concerned with the need to provide training. In all cases, accessing of that training was both seen as successful and welcomed by the academics, but it was felt that such training activities were under-utilised, with several respondents suggesting that those who most needed such support were least likely to access it.
82
Several respondents indicated a belief that the introduction of new teaching strategies and/or technologies was threatening to academics. There may be a related, but unexplored, explanation—that academics are at different stages in terms of resolving that threat, and that support staff had little responsibility (or opportunity) to prepare those who were most threatened for the use of those strategies or technologies. Thus it seems reasonable to speculate that those academics who are most confident are receiving most support. •
Reliance on external providers—It is clear that moves to adopt more flexible approaches to education mean increased reliance on commercial providers of communication infrastructure, particularly Telstra. While access to those external providers has allowed universities to redeploy resources, the actual quality of the service they provide remains a concern, particularly in terms of provision of teleconference and data transfer facilities.
Looking to the Future Respondents observed that flexible modes of delivery offered very positive alternatives to the more traditional versions of both on- and off-campus teaching. On-campus teaching was perceived by many respondents as highly problematic in terms of student motivation—‘a very frustrating format’. These respondents perceived that lecturers were often irrelevant to most students—‘students don’t want contact, or seek it out’. For these staff, the future demands flexible alternatives, but the move to that future requires far more leadership attention and resourcing than it is currently receiving. In particular, it is not logical to conclude that, because a faculty has been a leader in developing print-based materials, it will automatically be a leader in developing more flexible modes of teaching. Unfortunately, many respondents saw support in the form of skills development as the most appropriate approach to bridging that gap. The discussion in Chapter 4 suggests that this approach would be unsuccessful. The move to adopt flexible modes of delivery as the mainstream form of teaching implies that there will be a significant shortage of expertise and personnel to provide the necessary levels of support to academic staff in some areas—primarily those that support off-campus delivery and the use of CIT. Some of the respondents were already experiencing extreme levels of excess demand—one person doing the work of two or more. There is a need to avoid compartmentalisation, with the resultant fragmentation of services. This was seen in relation to the increasing diversity in the nature and use of particular technologies, the related specialisation that was required in terms of technical support staff and the development of appropriate pedagogical practices. Respondents suggested that there was a need to broaden the focus of flexible learning initiatives to address student needs. For example, independent learning was not seen as suiting all students. More needs to be done to help all students develop skills and coping strategies related to time management, personal
83
organisation (including clarification of expectations, and goal and priority setting) and isolation. One of the most important issues, given the concern for access, is the need to address issues related to attrition—counselling and support need to be provided. A focus on the development of teaching packages tends to overlook these needs, which are largely seen as peripheral. The flexible learning initiative has helped these support staff see that faculties need to ensure diversity in the conceptualisation and development of ‘flexible’ courses and subjects. There is also a need to review the existing ODE materials and related issues, including educational design, technical design and accessibility of library resources, in terms of their potential to meet students’ needs.
Conclusion It is clear that many respondents have a vision of the future in which affordable higher education can be delivered with increased quality to a greater number of students through flexible modes of delivery. They recognise that vision as an ideal, and their potential contribution to it as too often frustrated by the failure of too many academics and academic managers to either explore it, or make the necessary personal, policy and/or resource commitments to it. The client-focus of support staff can be seen as problematic. There is a sense that the respondents see their support for flexible modes of delivery as being provided on a needs basis. Their satisfaction resides in the quality of support they currently provide, and in the incremental progress that their institution is making towards that vision. However, the client-driven rationale seems a double-edged sword in the context of their concerns about lack of clear policy and/or resource commitments. As one respondent noted, their services are currently under-utilised because academics are unaware of how they might use those services in their teaching. Responding to demand assumes a knowledgeable clientele, and implies a subordinate role for policy. The paradox is that many clients tend not to know about or want support, yet any decision to impose it through the development of the foreshadowed policies and procedures could be seen as being driven by institutional and support staff needs.
84
85
7
Overlaying the Views What you see depends upon where you stand, the direction in which you look, when you look and what you notice. As with all social phenomena, there are multiple truths about the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery—the issue is inherently complex and changing. However, thinking about and planning responses to issues tend to be based on traditional linear models of rationality and causality. In critiquing these approaches, and pointing to their inappropriateness for dealing with complexity and uncertainty, Lucille Pacey (1993: 441) calls for the use of systems approaches which seek ‘to identify the system’s critical points and the barriers to change’. In this chapter, we discuss some of the ‘critical points’ and ‘barriers to change’ related to our investigation. It is important to acknowledge that this work draws on understandings that are associated with postmodernism. Bloland (1995) provides a very useful map of that terrain. He indicates that postmodernism ‘may be seen as a perspective, as a means for understanding the conditions we now live in’ (1995: 525). He also indicates that ‘[t]he postmodern world is a place of contradictions. It is rife with uncertainty, ambiguity, and contradictions’ (1995: 542). We have noted many examples of these. In Chapter 1, drawing on the work of Morrison (1995), we called for a recognition that a smooth evolutionary transition to the widespread use of more flexible modes of delivery is not likely. Indeed, we suggested that it may be far more productive to conceptualise the process of evolution in terms of postmodernist understandings, dislocations, dilemmas and uncertainties rather than more modernist projections from ‘what is’ to ‘what is needed’. The images of contestation and complexity arise from what Hartley (1995: 421) refers to as pressure for ‘choice, flexibility and diversity’. As a result, participants in all roles associated with the move to adopt more flexible approaches to teaching and learning confront a variety of practical, political and ethical dilemmas about the best course of action to pursue in complex and rapidly changing circumstances. These are the challenges of postmodern times, challenges that reach beyond academics and higher education to all professionals and organisations.
Looking to Critical Points Having surveyed the issue of flexible modes of delivery and technology from various vantage points in the preceding chapters, it is time to construct a map that identifies issues of particular significance—critical points. There is a sense that, in keeping with the metaphor so effectively used by Donald Schon, the terrain to be mapped is a swamp. There are few obvious landmarks—no high ground from which to survey the scene. Map making here is not of the type made possible by advanced technologies—the spy satellites, which can provide ever finer detail in their imagery. All that we can say with any strong sense of certainty is that we
86
must learn to live with uncertainty, to accept discontinuous change, and to learn continuously. As noted above, all organisations and their workforces are experiencing similar challenges. There is an overwhelming sense of the significance of the local context in determining how the academics who are subjects of this investigation have thought about their moves to flexible modes of delivery. As noted in Chapter 4, there appear to be four issues which are noticed in that context: policy; staff development support; support staff; and technology infrastructure. A less obvious, but extremely important, additional issue is the history of that context, particularly shared experiences and perceptions of various modes of delivery. This is captured in the discussions of respondents’ understandings of flexible modes of delivery in Chapters 4–6. Rather than repeat those discussions, we want to move to a discussion of issues related to the overlaying of views. This will focus on three critical points: •
difference and how it is viewed;
•
reform and staff development; and
•
policy and support.
One critical point that needs to be acknowledged very early in this discussion is the relationship between the issue of reform and the role of academics. In their discussion, Maguire and Ball (1994) note that ‘[i]n the USA teachers are reformers, in the UK they are “the reformed”’ (1994: 7). The equivalent statements for our groups would appear to be along the lines that, in terms of flexible modes of delivery, academics are seen to be both reformers and ‘the reformed’. Managers—through policy development initiatives—and support staff—through their expertise—are largely cast in ‘supporting roles’ to the reformers. A second critical point, related to the caveats noted at the end of Chapter 1, relates to the academics whom we interviewed. There is little reason for believing that our respondents are ‘typical’ of the more general academic community. There seem to be at least three dimensions that distinguish them as atypical. First, they didn’t include people who were simply surviving within a complex, challenging, and for some an extremely unsupportive, environment. Second, we did not include the views of those who were employed as casual staff, or on short-term contracts. Nor did our survey include many academics employed in Level A positions. In the main, our respondents were established academics, with relatively secure positions. For them, investing in their own professional development through developing more flexible teaching practices might be much easier and more strategic than would be the case for the other groups. Indeed, the absence of representatives from those groups represents a significant silence.
87
Third, most of our respondents were interested in advancing student learning, and advancing their own learning about teaching in order to improve their practices. It is not clear that these values are typical of all academics. Indeed, it was clear that such a focus was almost a feature of particular local contexts, most notably in Education and Law. Consequently, there is considerable risk associated with any attempt to extrapolate from our interviews to the wider academic community. Of course, the reviewed literature provides useful evidence to assist in the evaluation of that risk.
Issues of Difference Clearly there are differences in what the three groups of respondents have seen. The following table attempts to summarise some of the shared perceptions of each group. As a summary, it necessarily ignores issues of difference within each role group. Having acknowledged this, we want to avoid the temptation to ‘tidy’ the differences—that is, to identify issues of commonality and/or to suggest pathways to achieving commonality. We want to explore the issue of difference, and to advocate an ongoing focus on difference, and how it is both viewed and addressed. Universities are becoming more diverse internally in a number of senses. While most minority groups have had some presence within university student populations, the recent expansion in places has tended to increase the actual number of many minority groups to the point where they are able to become politically visible within university decision-making processes. This trend has been complemented by the development of equity and access policies, and committees and reporting structures which oversee and require accountability in these areas. Issues of equity have also become more significant in staff selection procedures. The point here is that there is increasing diversity in the student and staff populations—diversity in terms of ethnic and cultural backgrounds, gender balance, socio-economic backgrounds and disabilities. There is also an ongoing move to decentralise decision-making (Slowey 1995), which is creating opportunities for greater diversity in the actual practices of faculties and schools. Holt and Thompson (1995) explore some of these differences as they are reflected in attempts to grapple with the technological imperative. Our data on the two Queensland University of Technology sites reflects this organisational diversity. Beyond the issue of structures, the disciplines are themselves ‘fragmenting’, as new approaches to research and theorising are developed and applied. Old centres remain, but new alternatives are also developing. There are also numerous attempts to address inter-disciplinary scholarship. Where once there might have been assumptions of intellectual allegiance, such assumptions are less readily accepted and, if supported, are likely to be more transient in both their length and breadth.
88
Table 7.1
Contrasting the Views of Groups of Respondents
Issue
Academics
Managers
Support Staff
Focus for flexibility Rationale for ‘the move’
CIT and off-campus students Access and equity
Off-campus teaching
Approach to flexibility
Based on beliefs about teaching and learning, current practices, and rejection of ODE
Based on prior experiences and role
Based on prior experiences, roles and services provided
Views on technology
Can facilitate interactions with students
Not the issue—focus on how it is used
Integrated within packages and practices
Excellent if it is accessible and well serviced
Market share and access’With-it-ness’
Support for quality CBE
ODE and CIT practices Client centredness Cost efficiencies
Using it is stressful and requires sacrifices Priorities with respect to support
Time and energy
Little power to direct
Policy framework
Teamwork
Need expertise of support staff
Need information on ‘what is’
Leadership, including valuing their work Principal concerns
Views on professional development
Funding
Loss of interactivity
Quality of activities
Timely involvement
Closed interpretations of flexible delivery and inflexible organisational practices
Under-preparedness of academic staff for the challenges posed by the move
Managers’ and academics’ failure to anticipate new roles and needs
Need for more flexible support staff
Institutional culture focused on oncampus teaching
Increased interest in learning about flexible teaching and CIT
Manage threat of CIT Focus on developing Longer time-frame is technical and team needed skills
Views on the future Optimism if given the opportunity to learn, and opportunities for interaction with students
Competitive pressures Broaden focus of flexibility beyond delivery
Innovation-led Infrastructure needed
Our investigation points to yet another form of diversity, generated out of particular roles played, and related views on flexible modes of delivery. Our
89
interviews can be seen as variations on three relatively distinct discourses. One focuses on issues of market share, with flexible modes of delivery increasing the reach of the faculty/school into potential markets. Another focuses on issues of client needs and service, often addressed within a distance education framework. A third focuses on issues of interaction with students, with equity seen largely in terms of equal access to opportunities for interaction. While these differences are real, we need to explore their significance. Our investigation suggests that there is little reason to fear that their existence is itself a barrier to the adoption of more flexible practices. What it does represent is a barrier to inter-discursive communication about those practices. That is, they make it difficult for the messages of academic managers about the need for involvement in these practices to be both understood and valued by academics, or by support staff, if those messages are framed within a somewhat ‘closed’ discourse community. However, once representatives of the discourse communities come together in the context of a task, there are very real advantages in the differences. Genuine attempts to communicate across those differences require a stretching of our own position if we are to make sense of the position of another or make our own position known to another. In conversation, we come to recognise the limitations of our own assumptions, and discover an opportunity to both clarify and advocate them. Throughout this investigation we found this opportunity for conversation to be a most powerful context for learning, whether that conversation was with Lucy during the interviews, in the symposium, with colleagues or with students. Wherever powerful learning was evidenced, conversation with individuals who held different perspectives seemed to be involved. Thus diversity is a fundamental learning resource, and its use requires contexts within which conversations that allow respectful challenging or probing of beliefs and their assumptions can be conducted. The actual length of those conversations seems less important. This invites the discussion of the issue of reform.
Issues of Reform and Staff Development As the heading suggests, it is not possible to imagine a process of reform that does not involve staff development; nor is it helpful to think of staff development separately from any underlying agenda for reform. One of the major barriers to change is a lack of realism concerning the need for staff development on the part of the advocates. Elmore (1996: 24) speaks of this barrier thus: ‘[r]eformers typically make very heroic assumptions about what ordinary human beings can do, and they generalize these assumptions to a wide population of [academics]’.
90
Agendas for reform are articulated with other agendas of importance in this report, and underlying them are values and principles. In Chapters 1 and 2 we indicated that the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery is clearly articulated with reform agendas. Those agendas are, in turn, linked with a range of social, economic and technological changes. However, how one considers those agendas is itself problematic. Goodman (1995: 4) argues that ‘[i]f we are to understand a given educational reform movement, then it is more important to understand its basic values and principles than the types of pedagogical activities or structures it champions’. He suggests that the reform agenda associated with the use of technology is underpinned by the following values: •
social functionalism—the basic value of meeting ‘the functional needs of our society’s emerging commercial needs’ (1995: 4);
•
efficiency and productivity—an excessive interest in the values of productivity and efficiency (1995: 8);
•
individualism—self-interest as the essential principle upon which society should be based (1995: 16); and
•
expertism—faith in a caste of experts (1995: 19).
He suggests that technologically oriented reformers ‘tell us what our future society will look like and then ask teachers, administrators, parents, students, and other interested and involved individuals to transform [education] in the light of their vision of the future’ (1995: 8). His concern is that a reform agenda based on these values, if it were to succeed, would tend to replicate the type of education which is currently available. That is, we would have a reform in the method of delivery, but not in the nature of the actual educational experience—in the core issues. As noted in Chapter 2, the outcome would be reform without change. There is a real sense that the move which many of our respondents experienced was of this nature—teaching the same (old) way in different (new) media rather than teaching differently. It seems that, rather than reforming education, we are simply reformatting it—adapting old practices to new media. The articulation of change with reform requires that the call for reform move beyond issues of the delivery process. The only educationally defensible focus for educational reform is learning itself. That is, the reform should both be focused on the development of educational systems that maximise opportunities for learning, and provide those same conditions for those who are to create those systems. Before moving to discuss how this might be achieved, it is important to state some of the assumptions that underlie this view. First, as the work of Laurillard (1993) indicates, we have available to us increasingly sophisticated understandings of how learning is approached and achieved within formal educational settings. The most fundamental challenge here is to focus on helping learners to learn—to become lifelong learners. It is only through the use of these understandings, rather than through the use of technology, that the latter can be achieved. Second, this possibility requires considerable professional development on the part of academics (Krugel 1993). Krugel suggests that the achievement of this stage in an academic’s
91
career development makes it possible for them to teach flexibly, and to continue to develop their own teaching capacities—that is, to become lifelong learners about teaching. Third, it recognises that we have yet to explore in any sustained way how those understandings might be utilised in the practices of most academics. Most are entirely unaware of them. Fourth, we are not attempting to develop a routinised approach to this challenge. The context of educational practice is itself characterised by change. To imagine that we can settle into some new routinised form of flexible delivery is as problematic as imagining that, by doing nothing, the problem will resolve itself. Staff Development Respondents in all groups recognised that academic staff development is a critical point in the reform process. In their interviews and elsewhere, support staff spoke of the need for skills development, while academic managers spoke of the value of learning from each other. In both cases it seems that what is desired is a form of practice-focused learning—learning how to do it. The section on Professional development in Chapter 4 flags similar desires. There are few suggestions that there is a need for learning about learning itself, unless one reviews other sections in Chapter 4, particularly the Design of ‘their move’ section. In that discussion, there was considerable evidence concerning the conditions that respondents sought or utilised to maximise their opportunities for learning. These conditions included: •
developing strategies that were consistent with their beliefs;
•
articulating those beliefs in the context of collaborating with peers and support staff;
•
focusing on their own learning when first using technologies;
•
paying attention to the experience of teaching in unfamiliar contexts, and to feedback from colleagues and students;
•
challenging their own beliefs, as a result of acting on them in quite deliberate ways; and
•
seeking time to consider alternative ways of acting (and presumably ‘believing’).
It is important to remember here that these ‘beliefs’ were focused on teaching and learning. Both academics and academic managers expressed the view that the issue was openness rather than technology. What is less clear is that many academics considered openness in relation to issues of teaching and learning, and did so from a strong understanding of particular, and most often discipline-based, aspects of learning. These factors are consistent with the literature on staff development. For example, Acquarelli and Mumme (1996: 481–82) list six principles which guide their work in teacher change and professional development. They are:
92
•
Change requires teachers to become part of a professional learning community.
•
Beliefs and behaviours are part of a reciprocal process.
•
We have learned how critical it is that the pedagogy of professional development be congruent with the pedagogy desired in classrooms.
•
Issues of equity must permeate the fabric of professional development.
•
Professional development must be grounded in classroom practice.
•
Just as reformers urge us to teach all students, we believe that all teachers are capable of making the changes.
The notions of a ‘professional learning community’, and a focus on ‘beliefs and behaviours’, together with the necessity for congruence between the pedagogy of professional development and practice, are all reflected in the earlier list. The issue of time is critical. Academics clearly recognise that the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery involves changes in their roles, and that the larger the change, the greater the value of ‘lead time’ to explore it. Other writers have also commented on this. Holt and Thompson (1995: 58), for example, argue that: Rethinking practices, particularly in cross-campus and on-campus teaching settings, requires appropriate periods of critical self-reflection and planned experimentation. Senior management needs to be aware of this and should provide substantial funding to buy in or second out academic time to work on innovative uses of technology, away from the constant demands or work which strongly reinforces status quo practices in the organisation.
Gitlin and Margonis (1995: 388) make a similar point, suggesting that ‘a prerequisite for engagement and significant [educational] change is an increase in the amount of time teachers have to study their own teaching and act on their understanding to develop appropriate practices’. Collectively these views suggest an approach to reform which focuses on the provision of several types of professional development support. 1.
They identify time as a prerequisite to fundamental change in academics’ practices.
2.
They suggest that opportunities to collaborate, to engage in conversation about teaching and learning, are also a prerequisite.
3.
They speak about the nature of that conversation. It should focus on beliefs about teaching and learning, and the assumptions that underlie those beliefs.
4.
They suggest that academics should be encouraged to experiment with various practices and technologies as members of a professional learning community.
In turn, that community should encourage the exploration of assumptions, critique the status quo and value diverse perspectives. It should have as its focus the
93
improvement of teaching and learning, with technology seen as a potentially invaluable tool in that quest. It is clear that such communities are most easily achieved in local settings—teaching teams and, in some instances, schools. What forms of ‘outside expertise’ might be useful to these communities? Clearly there is value in accessing the experiences of others—as suggested by all groups— particularly where those experiences focus on the use of technology in relative unfamiliar ways. Beyond that level of awareness (and once particular technologies have been selected), skills-focused instruction could be extremely valuable. However, there may be a need for an additional form of expertise—that related to understanding learning. How that expertise might best be shared is not clear. Some, like Tillema (1995: 312), have wrestled with this problem. He found that: the knowledge structures of professionals are very difficult to change by mere presentation of information. Conceptual change, and training as a means to achieve it, needs to engage the pre-existing ideas, orientations, ways of thinking and perspectives of professional teachers; otherwise the hegemony of these knowledge structures will remain unchallenged. Challenging beliefs or expectations (stimulating cognitive conflict) as a confrontational approach to knowledge restructuring promises to be more successful than an incremental training approach aimed at the gradual accretion of new information and tuning of existing structures, at least where professional ‘learners’ are concerned.
This reference to ‘the hegemony’ of ‘pre-existing ideas, orientations, ways of thinking and perspectives’ clearly delineates the most important barrier to reform—the attitudinal barrier, noted in Chapter 2. It also reinforces the need for time to critically reflect on this barrier—simply naming it won’t reform it. Clearly, ‘mere presentation of information’ is not a useful strategy. However, as was noted in Chapter 4, involvement in experimentation with flexible modes of delivery tends to create an interest in professional development. What might be seen as ‘mere information’ at one time may be seen as ‘very useful information’ at another. Context is critical. Clearly the issue of staff development is complex, and the learning to be supported is not uniform across individuals. The words of McNamara et al. (1996: 34), while written in relation to an entirely different context, seem entirely consistent with our views. [W]hat appears to be an optimal training strategy in the short term is often detrimental in the long run. Likewise ... what appears to be an optimal learning tool at one level can be detrimental at another.
They remind us to revisit the earlier call for practice-focused learning, and to distinguish it from skill-focused training. The former pays attention to issues of the personal, the political, the ethical and the organisation. This was very clear in the comments made and questions asked by participants of the authors of the case studies during the symposium. Technical issues were acknowledged, but largely treated as background to the personal. Thus, while skill-focused training is often seen by CIT support staff as an optimal strategy, in the longer term that may
94
become a barrier to change as academics continue to confront ongoing demands for flexibility. One critical point in all contexts is the disjunction between the cultural traditions of higher education and the culture that these suggestions advocate. The former tend to emphasise academic autonomy and competitive individualism. The latter call for academic integrity to be practised within a culture of collaborative cooperativism. While there has long been an identification with the concept of ‘a community of scholars’, that call has largely been rhetorical, obviously at odds with the recognition and reward systems, all of which are focused on individual achievements. It remains entirely unclear as to whether ‘learning communities’ can flourish within a system of recognition and reward that is so fundamentally based on the value of competitive individualism.
Issues of Policy The issue of policy is seen largely in terms of managerial leadership and its articulation with intentions. What academics and support staff seek is policy that provides guidance—maps of permitted and possible pathways through the swamp. Thus policy needs to address two issues: direction and constraints. Policy is most effective when it indicates the general nature of the outcome that is sought, and clearly indicates the parameters of acceptable solutions and pathways to those solutions. The challenge for policy-makers appears to involve a number of issues. First, while the area of flexible modes of delivery is not a wilderness, policymakers are charting pathways into the unknown at the local level. They may be mindful of the lessons learnt elsewhere, but every context is a ‘one-off’—unique to some extent. One element of that uniqueness is the policy framework itself. A second challenge involves the related issues of participation and motivation. Is the move to involve an entire population of workers, or is it going to involve voluntary participation? In either case, the issue of recognising and rewarding participation should be addressed. There is considerable scope (and necessity) to link desired policy parameters with the preceding discussion of staff development. First, there is the issue of policy parameters. Elmore (1996: 18–20) suggests a policy focus that identifies
95
necessary support structures. (This is not to suggest that other elements of policy are unnecessary or inappropriate.) He suggests the following set of support structures for reform. •
Develop strong external normative structures for practice. Here Elmore’s intention is ‘to create strong professional and social normative structures for good teaching and practice that are external to individual teachers and their immediate work environment, and to provide a basis for evaluating how many teachers are approximating good practice at what level of competence’ (1996: 18). The intention is to objectify (and normalise) ‘good teaching and practice’, but to ensure that this statement would be seen to be supported by professional authority. The recent report, Recognising and Rewarding Good Teaching in Australian Higher Education (Ramsden et al. 1995), can be seen as an elaborated example of such structuring. The central point here is to allow teaching to become ‘a matter for public debate and disagreement, for serious reflection and discourse, for positive and negative feedback about one’s own practices’ (Elmore 1995: 19). There is a clear link between this structure and the earlier suggestions that conversation be the central feature of staff development. What Elmore appears to be suggesting is that this structure could assist that conversation by providing both a conceptual framework, and a set of standards in terms of which conversationalists might debate and reflect on their practices.
•
Develop organisational structures that intensify and focus, rather than dissipate and scatter, intrinsic motivation to engage in challenging practices (Elmore 1996: 19). This assumes an innovator-led approach to reform. Elmore (1996: 20) suggests that ‘structures should, at a minimum, create diversity among the energetic, already committed reformers and the skeptical and timid. But it also suggests that the unit of work in an organisation that wants to change its teaching practice should be small enough so that members can exercise real influence over each other’s practice.’ Again there are elements of continuity between the earlier discussion and this suggestion, notably in the area of the size of the group/community. The continuity is also evident, although perhaps phrased more pejoratively here, in the suggestion that change is a necessary focus for all.
•
Create intentional processes for reproduction of success (Elmore 1996: 20). Elmore suggests that ‘[t]eaching practice is unlikely to change as a result of exposure to training, unless that training also brings with it some kind of external normative structure, a network of social relationships that personalize the structure, and supports intention around problems of practice’ (1996: 21). Again, the link to staff development possibilities is clear.
96
•
Create structures that promote learning of new practices and incentive systems that support them (Elmore 1996: 24). The reference to incentive schemes revisits the suggestions of Olcott and Wright (1995), discussed in Chapter 2. Both their work and that of Elmore draws attention to the need for structures which motivate involvement in the development of new approaches.
What Elmore—along with most other authors—is failing to notice is that academic managers also have development needs. Slowey (1995) comments on the issue of leadership in ways that help identify both contributions and needs. She speaks (1995: 30) of ‘certain common phrases’ that appear in the edited papers: building trust; winning hearts and minds; getting ownership of change; team building; and honesty. These seem appropriate to all attempts to build learning communities. What she also notes are issues of ‘isolation and self-doubt’ (1995: 31). The suggestions for support and development should be inclusive of all—the issue of equity must be fundamental to the daily practices of learning communities.
Conclusion Through this investigation we intended to develop: •
an understanding of the relationship between diversification in modes of delivery, use of information and communication technologies, academics’ teaching practices, and the context in which those practices are employed;
•
a series of case studies of creative and effective adoption of flexible modes of delivery and use of information and communication technologies in teaching; and
•
a series of recommendations for higher education institutions and funding bodies concerning the most appropriate ways to prepare academics to take advantage of these opportunities.
In closing this chapter, we want to respond to the first and third of these issues, although the next chapter outlines the recommendations and comments on them. The ‘series of case studies’ is provided in Part II. The relationships between diversification in modes of delivery, use of information and communication technologies, academics’ teaching practices, and the context in which those practices are employed are complex and changing. We have identified the central role of attitudes and beliefs in these relationships, and the relationship of those attitudes and beliefs to personal and contextual histories. We indicated that they are developed in and through experiences and, unless they are formalised and reflected upon, represent formidable barriers to change. However, they should not be seen as necessarily negative—opposing change which is
97
exploitative, inequitable, poorly conceived and/or inflexible is absolutely appropriate. One key barrier to involvement lies in the assumed association of flexible modes of delivery with more traditional distance education practices. We know little about the impact of technologies on academics’ or students’ work or learning practices. What is obvious is that there is both ‘technological utopianism’ (Shade 1995: 215) and ‘widespread skepticism on campuses stemming from the historical failure of technological interventions’ (Lewis and Wall in McNeil 1990: 10). For most academics, reforming their practices to take advantage of the opportunities to support high-quality learning through the use of technology involves two quite distinct foci for learning. One involves learning to use the technology in pedagogically appropriate ways. The second involves developing pedagogical practices that are educationally defensible in terms of student learning. The former offers the possibility of reformatting education; the latter, reform. Both are difficult, but the latter poses the most significant challenge. To imagine them occurring contiguously and/or contemporaneously is naive at best. The most appropriate ways to prepare academics to take advantage of these opportunities require that higher education institutions and funding bodies focus their attention on the development of academics’ understandings of learning and learners. The first demands a more generic knowledge base. The latter requires them to refine those understandings in the context of their own practices, a task that is ongoing. This investigation points to the potential of staff development that is focused on establishing and nurturing learning communities within which those knowledges can be developed while engaging with ‘the pre-existing ideas, orientations, ways of thinking and perspectives’ (Tillema 1995: 312) of all participants. Within those communities, technology might usefully be explored as a means to promote learning. The issue of learning must become the central concern of academics and those who seek to influence their practices. Reform which focuses on ‘commitment to particular methods of delivery, particular means of course production [or] to particular ways of providing student support services ... become barriers to change’ (Pacey 1993: 444). The approach to flexible modes of delivery must become student-centred, but in educationally appropriate ways. Those who advocate flexibility must distinguish between issues of openness and systems that might deliver modes of flexibility. Given the rapid developments in technologies and students’ needs and preferences, to settle on a fixed version of flexible modes of delivery would be to misrecognise the challenges of unmet contexts. The investigation has revealed a positive scenario in terms of the development of academics’ approaches to both flexible modes of delivery and the use of communication and information technologies. Those approaches reflect creative use of available opportunities and resources. We also found an increasing willingness on the part of many academics to explore those opportunities. If
98
anything, the investigation reveals challenges for academic managers to take advantage of this willingness. They might turn their attention to other, less swampy, issues. Then there are issues of funding. In conclusion, then, we believe in the need for ‘non-stupid optimism’ on the part of those who work in the service of new and powerful opportunities for learning. The key to this work lies with staff development. The majority of staff that have to respond to the challenges posed by changing expectations and emerging technologies are already employed. Some, like Newson (1994), believe that they may simply be bypassed by the information superhighway. Our investigation found some academics are working on the construction of that highway, while many are working on alternatives to it. In a postmodern world, it is implausible to imagine a single highway. One challenge is to engage staff in developing these flexible alternatives. The more significant challenge is to engage them in this work in ways that lead beyond reformatting to reform.
99
8
Creating Conditions Conducive to Flexibility In this final chapter of Part I, we address the task of providing ‘a series of recommendations for higher education institutions and funding bodies concerning the most appropriate ways to prepare academics’ to take advantage of the moves to diversify modes of delivery and use information and communication technologies. However, rather than presenting recommendations, which tend to address specific actions, we offer suggestions concerning the creation of conditions conducive to this move. Thus we are seeking to identify critical issues for consideration before and during the process. In Chapter 7 we discussed ‘issues of staff development’ and ‘issues of policy’. In a chapter which discusses the creation of conditions conducive to flexibility, we argue that the creation of those conditions requires higher education institutions to address both of these issues. That is, the move to adopt flexible modes of delivery requires more than a focus on ‘the most appropriate ways to prepare academics’— issues of context also have to be addressed. Reform is not just about changing the practices of academics—to do so risks engaging in ‘an idealistic and selfreferential argument in which [reform] is described within a language rooted in a social psychology of relationships and morale’ (Lawn 1995: 358). Institutional practices need to be subjected to the same levels of scrutiny and expectation as are academics’ practices. This seems to be the message most clearly articulated by the support staff in Chapter 6. The focus of the following sections is, therefore, broader than ‘preparing academics’. They address the creation of conditions conducive to flexibility, including issues of advocacy of flexible modes of delivery, roles of advocacy, management and support, and policy. The specific sets of suggestions are based on the data generated through the interview process, as represented by the overview statements prepared for the groups of respondents at each site. An initial draft was shared (as recommendations) with symposium participants, and extensive feedback was received from them. That draft has been revised in the light of feedback on their value, and in the context of writing this report. It is important to indicate that the purpose of these statements is to provide general guidance. Given that we have emphasised throughout the report the significance of the local context, readers should not anticipate guidance that exactly fits their particular situation or needs. Nor should they expect to find a set of ready-made policy statements—these should be generated in relation to local issues.
100
Some Beliefs that Underpin our Suggestions The task of formulating suggestions is itself informed by a set of beliefs—those of the project team. In the main, these beliefs are focused on the issue of change. In Chapters 2 and 7 we explored the articulation of the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery with an underlying agenda for reform of the practices of higher education. The beliefs underpinning the suggestions which follow are informed by the investigation, but draw on understandings which are broader than its particular focus. It is important for us to acknowledge them because they provide a clear insight into our perspective on the investigation and its outcomes. •
Every organisation (and unit) comes with its own historical baggage of investments. These influence the perceptions and expectations of the academics, academic managers and support staff who work there and, as a result, shape the development of new practices. They can give rise to powerful and local mythologies. Their influence is likely to be manifested in a range of ways, often in ways that lie outside more rational processes. In all cases, they interact with the prior experiences and current roles of individuals.
•
The move to flexible practices does not imply that education is in a period of transition from one stable set of practices to another. While the move to flexibility has to have a strong element of continuity with current practices, it involves a deliberate reconfiguration, rather than an abandonment of current good practices. Further, the new practices will necessarily remain flexible and open to change. The case studies in Part II illustrate that there is already variety and change. However, in a context of change and uncertainty, there is a natural tendency to seek elements of stability. In our view, even relatively stable elements are unlikely to remain impervious to changes around them.
•
A ‘one size fits all’ approach to flexible education is inappropriate. The move to flexible modes of delivery incorporates elements of openness, but is based on a commitment to student–student and student–lecturer interactivity in a way that distinguishes it from more traditional distance education practices. That interactivity is facilitated through the use of communication and information technologies (CIT). While the design of particular forms of flexible delivery should reflect local considerations, decisions should be guided by educational principles, attend to matters of equity and consider issues related to the sustainability of any practices which might be adopted.
•
Institutional change always involves issues of power. Change cannot be successfully imposed from above because there is neither an absolute level of control, nor a guarantee that decisions will be implemented without challenge and change. All participants have some level of power. Therefore, managing change is inevitably fraught with uncertainty.
101
•
Decisions concerning flexible education need to address issues of equity for all stakeholders. A concern for equity is an unfinished project because the needs of participants change. Irrespective of the actual approach to flexible modes of delivery adopted, the process of design and implementation needs to avoid marginalisation and exploitation of participants. Equity considerations apply to staff and students. In particular, the enthusiasm of some academic staff for teaching should not be exploited. Designs also need to avoid marginalising on-campus students.
•
The move to flexible education is a move to greater collaboration. Flexible modes of delivery will require access to new skills and/or expertise. Those skills and expertise can effectively be accessed through, and developed within, collaborative teamwork. Teaming may change work practices and roles, as new partnerships are forged across what were once disparate domains in the institution. Successful teamwork is underpinned by a concern for parity of esteem.
Suggestions We offer the following suggestions concerning the creation of conditions conducive to the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery and to use communication and information technologies. When Advocating the Adoption of More Flexible Modes of Delivery In Chapter 2 we listed advice on advocacy within institutions provided by Olcott and Wright (1995: 12–14). That advice suggests: •
emphasising the advantages of flexible modes of delivery rather than the technology when communicating with academics;
•
linking the advantages of CIT with human resource and staff development issues;
•
focusing advocacy on heads of school and deans;
•
engaging in activities and roles that are valued by academics and the mainstream academic culture to enhance your credibility;
•
marketing the academics as well as the programs;
•
creating comprehensive staff development plans to promote the adoption of flexible modes of delivery;
•
disseminating flexible learning research, publications, and modes to academic management; and
•
having patience.
102
We endorse those suggestions and offer the following additional suggestions to those who are advocating the adoption of more flexible modes of delivery. •
Advocate the development of flexible modes of delivery which are focused on learning. It is more important to understand any mode of delivery in terms of its basic values and principles, rather than the pedagogical activities or structures it champions—as noted in Chapter 7. Advocacy of flexible modes of delivery should be initiated through discussions of, and be based on commitment to, effective teaching and learning. When they arise, and because they tend to activate negative perceptions, ensure that the relationship between more traditional modes of on-campus and distance education and flexible modes of delivery is discussed in terms of issues such as openness, interaction, technology and cost, as discussed in Chapter 1. In exploring reactions to change, distinguish between healthy scepticism and blind cynicism. Clarity begins at home—model it, promote it.
•
Explore the issues from the perspective of the audience. Advocate the adoption of flexible practices in terms of the focus of the particular audience. Academics tend to focus on teaching issues, support staff tend to focus on students’ needs, while managers tend to focus on institutional needs. While all issues need to be addressed, exhortations to one group based on the interests of another are likely to be counter-productive. In particular, avoid focusing on personal interests and/or preferences when seeking change in the practices of others. Wherever possible, investigate the strengths and limitations of current practices before moving to discuss options for change. Proactively contribute to public discussion of flexible modes of delivery as an opportunity to clarify intentions and encourage informed expectations.
•
Promote the development of learning communities. Advocate team-based approaches, and the formation of networks of staff involved in exploring, developing, implementing and/or evaluating flexible modes of delivery. Work to ensure that these learning communities value differences in approaches, participation of staff in diverse roles and the search for necessary expertise both within and beyond them.
When Managing the Adoption of More Flexible Modes of Delivery •
Attend to values and principles, and intentions as well as strategies. This should be in addition to, but precede, a focus on procedural issues and mechanisms. Discuss specific actions in relation to educational values and principles, wider organisational missions and strategies. Acknowledge the limits of policy and procedures as guides for these local enactments.
103
•
Develop an explicit policy framework which provides a relatively secure context within which teams can develop their particular projects. That framework should address issues such as: − overall intentions; − target students; − funding; − time release for development; − collaboration between academics and support staff; and − technology infrastructure; and refinement of practices.
•
Develop practices to recognise and reward involvement and achievement in collaboration and teaching through flexible modes of delivery. Most reward structures in higher education work against collaboration, and are not seen as recognising or rewarding teaching success. Given that the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery involves risk-taking and, at least in the development stage, quite significant time and energy commitments, it is important to establish practices which identify ‘strong normative structures for practice’ and reward engagement with, and achievement in terms of, them. Link these rewards to participation in local collaborative networks so that others can learn from that success.
•
Recognise the organisation’s customer status in relation to outside service providers, and assert its needs and expectations in relation to the quality of those services. Customers can be powerful. Expect high-quality service from external service providers (e.g. Telstra), and ensure that it is received.
When Developing more Flexible Modes of Delivery •
Work in teams. Teams should include relevant academics and support staff, including those whose work is more peripheral to teaching, but may be central to learning. The latter include librarians, student counsellors and staff from student administration. While membership of teams should be flexible, with involvement reflecting project needs at any particular time, all teams should have a stable ‘core’. Leadership should be shared, but overall responsibility should be located with an individual team member. Who should direct should be decided in the context of the nature of the project, and in the light of individuals’ skills, responsibilities and workloads. All of this recognises that, in the context of flexible modes of delivery, ‘teaching’ becomes a shared responsibility.
•
Focus on quality teaching and learning. Teams need to distinguish between the practices and resources required by any mode of delivery, and educational outcomes (including equity) as ends. That is, teams should focus on utilising their collective expertise in ways that maximise the opportunities for highquality teaching and learning, rather than focus on issues of openness, interactivity, technology or cost as ends in their own right.
104
•
See flexibility in relation to a particular project. Projects should be clearly defined, and this definition should result from an explicit consideration of the range of intentions, assumptions and imperatives of all stakeholders and team members. Flexibility should be understood and valued in the interest of particular needs and/or intentions. For teaching projects, intentions should focus on creating opportunities for high-quality student learning.
•
View any project as being, to some extent, open to ongoing development. This calls attention to the need to update practices and resources in the light of experiences and feedback, and the development of new understandings and opportunities. Structure in a feedback loop early in the implementation process, and provide support in terms of responding to that feedback. This contributes to maintaining the openness of the practices and the resources.
•
Allow time for the exploration of alternative practices. Teams need time to explore alternative practices, to develop skills in the use of any new practices, and to learn from experiences.
•
Employ technologies in the service of new and powerful opportunities for learning. CIT can provide invaluable support for learners, and is essential for any flexible mode of delivery. In particular, it opens opportunities for interactivity which are educationally imperative. The development of educationally appropriate uses for technology requires active engagement with technology by those academics who are most focused on creating opportunities for learning. However, don’t undervalue print technologies.
When Supporting the Adoption of More Flexible Modes of Delivery •
Provide that support within collaborative settings—to teams or networks. Promote conversations which focus on issues of teaching and learning, and the relationship between approaches to teaching and learning outcomes. Make contact with relevant local understandings, opportunities and challenges. Effort must be invested in advertising the availability and potential value of all available support—the expertise that is available through it.
•
Focus on developing both educational rationales for practices and skills in using technology in pedagogically appropriate ways. Support should focus on increasing understandings of intentions and alternatives, strategies and sources of additional information concerning flexible education. It should develop understandings related to the educational rationales for practices. It should also focus on the provision of more detailed skill development in relation to particular strategies or technologies. It should also assist staff in experiencing any interactive process before they use it as a teaching practice in order to help them focus on students’ experiences and learning rather than their own during any ‘live’ interactive activities.
105
•
Advocate the value of technology in the service of educational ends. Recognise that the opportunities to ‘perform’ teaching are not necessarily diminished by a move to flexible practices, but appreciate that this may require new skills if the performance is to be located in new contexts, such as in print, or via communication and/or information technologies.
Creating these Contexts There seem to be two approaches to creating a context within which flexible approaches to teaching are adopted. One places a priority on direction—a topdown approach—while the other prioritises exploration—a bottom-up approach. The focus in the present report reflects the exploration view. In Chapter 7 we noted practices which are relevant to both approaches. The appropriate relationship between these two approaches is one of mutual feedback, with development in one being reflected in ongoing development of the other.
Figure 7.1 The Feedback Cycle Linking Policy and Exploration
Policy Policy seems to be the key element in any attempt to provide direction. What academics and support staff seek is policy that provides guidance—maps of permitted and possible pathways through the swamp—and which can be read as statements of commitment (of resources and/or power). Thus policy needs to address three issues: direction, constraints and resources. Policy is most effective when it indicates the general nature of the outcome that is sought, clearly indicates the parameters of acceptable solutions and pathways to those solutions, and identifies sources of necessary resources.
106
In Chapter 2 we noted the work of Olcott and Wright (1995), who provide nine practical steps to support academic involvement in distance education, adapted to refer to involvement in ‘flexible’ education. Here we will reflect on some of those suggestions, and provide elaborations based on the findings of the present investigation. •
Define the scope of [flexible] education for meeting the extended mission of the institution. We have noted the changing roles of universities. Changes to adopt more flexible practices need to be explicitly recognised through elaboration of mission statements, and any existing macro-policy documents, such as teaching and learning management plan/s, and information technology management plan/s.
•
Establish a policy task force to define the applicability of [flexible] teaching towards promotion and tenure. It is clear that, in Australia, the enterprise bargaining approach to industrial negotiations and the establishment of the conditions for employment and internal promotion locate considerable responsibility for these issues within each institution. The process has led to a significant level of formalisation of criteria (and standards) for appointment and promotion. Thus there are clear opportunities to link engagement with, and achievement in, more flexible approaches to teaching to the issues of tenure and promotion. For example, it should be possible to establish criteria by which an academic might seek promotion from a Level C to a Level D position in terms of his or her involvement in the development of flexible teaching and learning practices.
•
Delineate a faculty leadership role in [flexible] education based on the faculty participation description. Here Olcott and Wright (1995: 9) refer to ‘providing instructional leadership beyond the fundamental role of teacher’. They are arguing against the view that the development of flexible practices is really the responsibility of the academics. (To some degree, this attribution of responsibility is evident in the views of academic managers presented in Chapter 5.) Olcott and Wright draw attention to the need for academic managers to ‘own’ the issue, and not simply assume that centralised services will be available, or that academics should collaborate with them. They call for faculties to become ‘intimately involved in the instructional design process, the design of student support services, in student advising, and in the rigorous evaluation of technologically mediated instruction’ (1995: 9). We reiterate this call. In Australian universities, many of these functions tend to be located in centralised support services. Our investigation sheds little light on whether these might be more effectively located in faculties. The Flexible Learning Centre, established in 1995 at the University of South Australia, represents an attempt to develop a collaborative model between centralised expertise and facilities, and local discipline-based courses and academics (see Moran 1996).
107
•
Establish training, release-time, faculty assignment and compensation models with departmental chairpersons and with deans. In an increasingly lean budgetary context, this suggestion can easily be seen as unrealistic. However, there is considerable scope to refocus the use of resources. For example, most universities provide a range of staff development services. Deans and other academic managers can and should influence the focus and nature of those programs. Similarly, they should encourage staff to apply for internal schemes of study leave in order to undertake professionally relevant investigations into flexible approaches to teaching. They should also encourage staff to apply for external funds. The Australian Committee for the Advancement of University Teaching (CAUT) grant scheme is one example of such funding. Internal funds could also be devoted to providing staff release time, and funds to assist with resource development. Where possible, internal funds should be provided on a recovery basis. That is, support might be targeted to particular subjects on a rotating basis, and agreements reached whereby any additional funds would be recovered through pricing of resources, or slight changes in workloads. For example, in a school with an academic staff of fifteen, a slight increase in the teaching load of thirteen of these staff members might free up two academics for a semester. Whatever strategies are used, it will be critically important to ensure that policies provide for ongoing evaluation and development of practices and resources. The shift to flexible approaches is not a one-off move, and the long-term sustainability of any initiatives requires ongoing work.
•
Develop a discipline-based research agenda for faculty teaching via CIT. We have argued consistently that flexible approaches must be grounded in local contexts, and those contexts are most often defined in terms of disciplinebased issues. Academics are seeking practice-focused support, and those practices need to reflect discipline-specific issues. The nature of the subject matter, and the related practices involved in the teaching and learning of that subject matter, are significant constraints, as illustrated very well by Waggoner (1994).
•
Integrate a marketing plan that showcases the faculty, the academic unit, the college, and service by these groups to students via telecommunications. While the Australian media include many advertisements for courses which are delivered through flexible modes (including CIT), it is clear that many students have little sense of what this means in specific terms (see Taylor 1995 for evidence of this). Thus, in addition to ‘showcasing’, there is an opportunity for faculties to introduce their approach to flexible delivery to potential students as a means of distinguishing their offerings from those of other providers.
108
•
Disseminate faculty and student evaluation data to key stakeholders in (flexible) education. The move to flexible practices needs extensive and intensive support in terms of monitoring and evaluation, and organisational learning. One issue that was raised only fleetingly above involves the relationship between that data and decision-making. All staff should have an obligation to respond to the data, and to ensure that the providers of the data are, in turn, provided with feedback on its use. In particular, students need to be located within feedback and development activities as both providers and recipients of evaluation information.
Exploration In Chapter 7 we provided an overview of the type of context in which academics might effectively explore moves towards more flexible practices. We identified four interrelated dimensions for such a context: •
time—to explore, reflect, collaborate;
•
opportunities to collaborate, to engage in conversation about teaching and learning;
•
participation in conversations which focus on beliefs about teaching and learning, and the assumptions that underlie those beliefs; and
•
encouragement to experiment with various practices and technologies as a member of a learning community.
While these dimensions imply a teacher-centred view of reform, we are very aware that academics ‘cannot individually reconceive their practice and the culture of their workplace’ (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin 1995: 601). On the other hand, ‘[t]he success of [the reform] agenda ultimately turns on teachers success in accomplishing the serious and difficult tasks of learning the skills and perspectives assumed by the new visions of practices and unlearning the practices and beliefs about students and instructions that have dominated their professional lives to date’ (Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin 1995: 597). Academics need to take seriously the challenges of learning and unlearning. They need a conducive context within which to do this, one which links issues of reform to issues of reward, as noted previously. There are several issues of relevance to the learning needed in relation to perspective. Pacey (1993: 442) argues that, in everyday life, ‘individuals are not challenging the role of technology ... they are using it’. Her message is that academics need to explore the value of technology to teaching and learning, rather than invest time in debating whether they should make such an exploration. This would represent a change in perspective for many. There is also a need to recognise that communication and information technologies function as labourchanging, rather than labour-saving, devices (Rutherford and Grana 1995: 84).
109
They act to transform how tasks are performed. They may save time, but most research points to a change in the way time is spent, rather than an absolute reduction in that time. In terms of perspective, we have noted a significant concern to distinguish the ‘new visions of practices’ from ‘memories of past experiences’, particularly memories of more traditional forms of distance education. It could be very helpful to decision-makers to represent their ‘new visions of practices’ in terms of these continua noted in Chapter 1. One way of doing that is via a diagram, and through manipulation of that diagram. The continua can be thought of as dimensions of flexibility and be represented as lines arranged in parallel, as in Figure 8.2.
Figure 8.2 Dimensions of Flexibility Once they are represented in this way, the lines can be moved horizontally, like a slide rule, to express different preferences. In Figure 8.3, we see a preference for limited openness, extensive two-way interaction, no preferences in terms of the use of technologies, and a desire to limit the cost of the possible practices. That is, the lines representing the continua are moved in the direction opposite to the preferences. The end product is a zone of overlap—a preferred range of flexible practices. Thus the effects of movement in relation to any one continua can be easily visualised.
Figure 8.3 Preferred Range of Flexibility
110
There are some limitations on the value of this diagram. The continua are not related in terms of their actual alignment, nor are preferences in relation to one independent of preferences in relation to another. That is, ‘openness’ does not necessarily equate with ‘high cost’. Similarly, a change in preferences for interaction towards less interaction would not necessarily correlate with increasing use of paper-based technologies. Thus the ‘preferred range of flexibility’ is a qualitative indicator only. On the other hand, use of the diagram could lead to quite productive explorations of local interpretations of each continuum, while avoiding discussions which are biased by unstated perceptions of prior experiences of distance or face-to-face practices. Research has identified the skills that staff need in order to contribute to these more flexible practices. Thach and Murphy (1995) identify ten key competencies, and allocate these to four major and seven supporting roles, within a distance education context. The key competencies, in (descending) order of importance, are: •
interpersonal communication;
•
planning skills;
•
collaboration/teamwork;
•
English language proficiency;
•
writing skills;
•
organisational skills;
•
feedback skills;
•
knowledge of (flexible teaching and learning);
•
basic technology knowledge; and
•
technology access knowledge.
Their list and allocation of particular skills to particular roles serve to highlight the skills that are necessary, and the ways that individuals with different roles might contribute to the availability of each skill within the context of a particular project team. The roles include explicit reference to the need to address issues of student support—a provision which we endorse. The issue of deskilling which was raised in Chapter 4, on the other hand, is not addressed by Thach and Murphy, although it is by Lawn (1995) and Newson (1994). A collegial context could provide a supportive environment within which individuals could access and/or develop these skills. It might also assist individuals to focus on the opportunity to make better use of some skills, while they have fewer opportunities to use others.
111
Conclusion The most important finding from this project is the message that flexible modes of delivery, incorporating significant elements of CIT, can be educationally defensible and professionally satisfying. We have explored some of the conditions necessary for that achievement in Chapter 7. They involve support from academic managers, support staff and academic staff developers. The richness of that support can be enhanced through the deliberate use of collaborative processes, and the opportunity to engage in conversations which challenge existing beliefs and assumptions about teaching, learning and technology, and which lead to the re/development of policy frameworks. They are limited by the ready availability of CIT infrastructure and services to support the use of those technologies. On the other hand, it would be unrealistic to believe that all academics can develop the necessary understandings and skills without significant investments in staff development. Within the current funding arrangements, additional levels of support are unlikely to be achieved. Given this scenario, the desired reforms are unlikely to eventuate only through targeting of existing resources in ways which support this move. There is a sense that we are at a watershed. We can learn to use technology in educationally appropriate ways in order to achieve a reform in the delivery of education. Or we can use technology to lengthen the reach of one-way transmission—doing more of the same, but in broadcast mode. We have seen examples of both outcomes. The difference lies in the values and principles that underlie the practices, and the understandings and skills that give rise to them. Our preferred pathway through this swamp is marked out by conversation, learning communities and a focus on learning for academics and their students.
112
113
Part II: Case Studies
114
115
9
Introduction The project team intended to develop ‘a series of case studies of creative and effective adoption of flexible modes of delivery and use of information and communication technologies in teaching’. This Part provides those. The case studies offer insights into the multiplicity of experiences which inform the perspectives shared in Part I, and the relationship of that multiplicity to particular opportunities and contexts. In this introduction, we want to provide a large-scale map of the cases. In particular, we want to discuss the development of the cases, the relationship of the cases to the earlier sections of the report, the selection of cases and some of the themes that run through the case studies. Each case was developed from the initial interview transcripts, and elaborated through ongoing discussion between Lucy Lopez and the nominated focal person. The additional contributions from this subsequent conversation vary from case to case, as does the actual contribution of the nominated focal person. Thus, in some instances, the case was collaboratively authored, while in others the focal person simply responded to drafts prepared by Lucy. In some instances, the cases had already been the subject of extensive evaluations, and considerable information was readily available. In others, the ideas were formalised for the first time through this process. The actual form of the presentation of each case study reflects this. Several cases are presented as conversations and some as partpersonal statements; others are written entirely from the perspective of the focal person. It is important to note that these are statements of perceptions of experiences. Other participants in any of the ‘cases’ might have provided different interpretations. However, it is the personal aspect that we wish to share here.
Relationship Between Cases and Part I We make no claim that the cases represent ‘best practice’. Indeed, that notion is somewhat problematic in the context of our previous assertions that ultimately flexibility must be developed (and evaluated) in specific local contexts. In some senses we sought to offer cases which were illustrative of the multiplicity of experiences and perspectives. For this reason, it is difficult to see them as reflections of the particular issues discussed in Part I. On the other hand, given that they helped to inform the earlier discussion, they tend to elaborate upon and ground a number of the general points made in Part I. For this reason, we have not attempted to provide explicit links between any case and any previous claim or suggestion, even though some might be readily apparent.
116
We do want to illustrate the preferred range of flexibility exemplified by several of the cases, along the lines discussed in Chapter 8. That relationship will be illustrated in the following section.
Selection of Cases We spoke to many academics, academic managers and support staff during the investigation. We wanted to include case studies because they would allow an opportunity to explore in much finer detail a subset of the experiences and perspectives of respondents. In doing so, they make transparent and contextualise several of the recurring issues the project initially sought to address, as well as issues that emerged during the data collection process. Therefore we had to develop a set of criteria to help us identify the work that we would include in this section of the report. Cases were selected on the basis of their: •
exemplification of interesting flexible practices;
•
use of technology;
•
use of a team approach to the development of the process and/or resources; and
•
focus on the issue of sustainability.
Where possible in the case studies, it was intended that discussion would also make reference to outcomes related to student learning. Table 9.1 provides an overview of the cases in terms of these issues. We have noted in Part I that these are not offered as exemplary cases of the adoption of flexible practices, but they are of interest. It is their personal nature and specificity, rather than their ‘flexible practices’, that make them interesting. We proposed a method of representing preferences for particular dimensions of flexibility in Chapter 8. The range of flexibility suggested in the initial intentions of four of the cases is represented in Figure 9.1. The remaining case studies are less easily represented in this way, given that they do not focus on a single project.
117
Table 9.1
Overview of Cases
Case and Perspective
Context
Use of Technology Use of Teamwork
Wendy Morgan— academic
Education (QUT)
Print, video and audioconferences
Extensive (including support staff)
Darien Rossiter— support staff David Saunders— academic and academic manager Gail Halliwell— academic
QUT (Education) Humanities (Griffith)
Audioconferences
Extensive
Print-based resources
Discussed
Education (QUT)
Audiographics
Frances McGlone— academic Michael Ryan— academic
Law (QUT)
Multimedia
Education (QUT)
Computer-based interactivity
Extensive (including support staff) Extensive (including support staff) Discussed
Stephen Colbran— academic
Law (QUT)
Multimedia
Wendy Morgan
Discussed
Issues of Sustainability Need for academics to explore alternatives Need for policy and resources Need for policy and team-based approaches. Need for resources and reliability Need for ongoing support Need for userfriendly infrastructure Need to develop skills to continue development
118
Gail Halliwell
Michael Ryan
Stephen Colbran
Figure 9.1 Intended Ranges of Flexibility for Four of the Case Studies
119
Themes Across the Cases While each case study tends to emphasise particular issues, other issues are most apparent only though looking across them. Some issues—the cost, particularly of time taken to develop initiatives; the value of team-based approaches; the need for greater coordination within the institution—have been raised in Part I. However, additional issues emerge in the context of an extended examination of a particular initiative. We point to a number of issues that became visible across and within these case studies. First, students and their reactions to particular practices and opportunities emerged much more obviously in these cases. The discussion in Part I reflects the project’s intentions—the investigation of academics’ perceptions. The visibility of students within these cases provides a useful addition to that discussion. Interestingly, several cases suggest that some students experience significant benefits from the decreased visibility associated with interaction through some forms of technology. Reference is made to the increased confidence they experience when they are not visible, and to an increased focus on ideas rather than individuals when the latter are not visible. Second, several of the studies highlight the loss of personal initiative and flexibility that results from the technological mediation of inter-personal practices. In Wendy Morgan’s, Gail Halliwell’s and Michael Ryan’s work, the impact of failures in communication technologies is very evident. These studies remind us that the more traditional face-to-face practices allow enormous capacity for flexibility in problem-solving. For example, uncertainty has always been associated with the process of student enrolment. Academics and students have been, in the main, able to cope with that in face-to-face settings. However, where resources have to be provided within a time-frame that allows for technologymediated interaction early in a program of teaching, then that time-frame imposes significant new demands on university administrative services, and requires students to exercise greater discipline in stating their intentions. The point is that many discussions of flexibility focus on particular inflexible aspects related to participation, and ignore others. Those other aspects are relatively invisible—even taken for granted—because they have not been a focus of concern. However, the move to change some aspects of the overall system may cause previously unproblematic aspects to become much more problematic. This is another version of Evans and Nation’s (1992: 9) point, noted in Chapter 2—that changing to more flexible practices does not eliminate problems; it creates new ones. One implication is that the design of new practices has to focus on identifying problems that those practices might create. More particularly, the use of CIT is likely to cause problems if that use involves ‘real time’ interactions.
120
Third, several cases offer a view of the evolution of perspectives. The move to flexible practices, as noted in Chapter 4, has significant backwash effects in terms of professional development. These cases indicate that the perspectives of individuals do change over time, and that the outcomes of involvement may be quite different to expectations associated with initial intentions, or even initial experiences. While it is appropriate to suggest that initial cynicism should be ‘put to work’, there is also a sense that the move provides a significant opportunity to ‘put enthusiasm to work’ in ways that doing more of the same does not. This is not an argument of change for change’s sake, but it is a suggestion that increased flexibility may contribute to the creation of conditions for greater professional involvement and satisfaction. Fourth, these cases indicate that the adoption of more flexible practices is essentially an educational rather than a technical process. The cases provide powerful examples of principled practices, and of principles that are located within educational rationales for change. There is little sense that technical capacities induced exploration. Exploration began with educational challenges, and turned to technology as a means to respond to these. Finally, the issue of the sustainability of particular practices remains problematic for many of the practices illustrated here.
121
Case Studies
122
123
Case Study 1: The Evolving Academic Wendy Morgan
Introduction Professional personality has been a critical aspect of my teaching in secondary and tertiary contexts For some academics, a professional personality is the essence of their teaching practice, from which several other functions of teaching derive and into which they feed. By ‘professional personality’, I mean that persona which the teacher brings into the classroom and which she/he uses to facilitate learning. Professional personality has been a crucial aspect of my teaching in secondary and tertiary contexts for over 20 years, one that has been shaped by my research and writing. Translating that research into practice has been a major focus in my practice and engaging my physical presence with my students has been an integral means of doing this. I know from a lot of the feedback I receive that it has been highly successful. I believe this is partly because this facilitates the ready communication of ideas through the pleasures of discourse that it creates.
My Response I was doubtful that the text could generate the interactive nature of discourse I consider fundamental to learning. My response to the faculty’s commitment to Open Learning was a mixed one. An overriding sense of enthusiasm was entangled with apprehension and doubt. My eagerness and interest in exploring alternative forms of teaching were somewhat muffled by a deep concern that the professional personality on which my teaching was crafted would be lost in what I perceived to be depersonalised forms of teaching. Indeed, I am offended by a view that teaching is about the delivery of materials. A writer and reader, I was aware of some of the potential of print as a medium of communication and negotiation of meaning. Nevertheless, I was doubtful that the text could generate the interactive nature of discourse I consider fundamental to learning. However, a powerful motivating force for me was the challenge of thinking about how best to ‘stage’ the learning (in two senses, of sequencing and of mounting a performance). For this I believe is the crux of teaching. In 1995, I was part of a team that was responsible for the teaching of a core course unit in the Master of Education program. We had the intriguing task of teaching the same content to both on- and off-campus students simultaneously and in nearly equivalent modes. We shared this responsibility by having a number of us conduct on-campus tutorials at the same time that another group was engaged in teleconferences with
124
off-campus students. Since an ‘old trouper’ with strong face-to-face teaching skills was needed to provide an example and some guidance to staff and to oncampus students, I agreed to be part of the on-campus teaching team, working with an expanded group of teachers, some of whom lacked experience in this course. It should, however, be noted that the team as a whole comprised six highly enthusiastic and experienced ‘traditional style’ teachers, who had little experience in teaching from a distance. We were managed by two colleagues who were extremely successful ‘traditional style’ teachers in their own right. Well aware of the team’s general lack of knowledge and expertise in conducting distance teaching, they set themselves an initial task of seeking information and advice on the various aspects of the distance teaching that we envisioned.
Preparations and Priorities We decided that our teaching would incorporate a study guide, a video and some teleconferences for off-campus students and a reduced number of lectures and tutorials for on-campus students. In 1994, we began preparations for the teaching of the unit to both on and offcampus students in 1995. This was in anticipation of the Master’s program becoming an off-campus offering only by 1996. For reasons discussed below, we decided that our teaching would incorporate a study guide, a video and some teleconferences for off-campus students and a reduced number of lectures and tutorials for on-campus students. We had some clear priorities. Above all, we wanted to ensure that no group of students would be disadvantaged as a consequence of the distance teaching. This led to certain in-principle decisions. The first was that on-campus students should receive the same teaching materials that were available to off-campus students. In this way, students could scan the range of topics and offerings and focus on particular parts of the unit when it suited them, instead of having to wait until a topic was dealt with in a lecturing program. Thus we hoped that both on- and offcampus students alike could organise their learning more independently and in accordance with the rhythms of their lives. Our second working principle was that off-campus students should have equivalent contact time with teaching staff via teleconferencing to on-campus students via lectures and tutorials. In such ways we attempted to minimise the difference between the two modes of teaching/learning, rather than exploiting the different capacities of each. Clearly we had an overriding desire to try to create a teaching and learning environment for off-campus students that would enable
125
interactions and discussion which all members of our team felt were essential for learning. Thus it was decided that teleconferences would be the means to this end—apart, of course, from any informal study groups or partnerships students might organise. Underlying these decisions, no doubt, was a belief in the complementary advantages of each: both the flexibility of self-paced, self-focused learning and the pedagogical potential of person-to-person interactions. (This case study concerns my experiences as a teacher learning; it does not focus on the experiences of learners.) Our third principle was that the off-campus students should not feel alienated from the teaching environment. This was the underlying concern behind our decision to produce a video that would capture some instances of our practice in this environment, in the hope that the ‘distanced’ students would be drawn into this environment and would thus experience some sense of participation or engagement. (The package of materials is discussed below.) With these priorities firmly in mind, the team managers sought the advice and information that they thought was needed to develop the teaching package. Contact was made with ‘experts’ and managers in various sections. These included the dean, the Master’s course coordinator, members of the Open Learning Unit, the Audio-Visual Unit and the library. Discussion concerned policies or precedents which would provide parameters, pedagogical principles of ‘distance’ learning, budget allocations, anticipated numbers of students, costs of materials and their delivery in various modes, and timelines for delivery of materials for preparation. The resulting information and advice conditioned and sometimes altered our aspirations in the light of what was possible or permissible. In the main, however, we believed that we could still provide materials and experiences for learning which would realise our principles.
Experiencing and Addressing Dilemmas At various times during the development I know I was not alone in thinking that we were making accommodations and (sometimes) compromises, while we were still sustained by our belief that a good resource for learning could still be provided. Through the planning and developing stages, I was aware of some disjunctions between the team’s principal concern with the pedagogy and the means of its transformation on the one hand and the concerns of managers and support personnel with the technicalities (often, it seemed to us, driven rather by instrumental rationalist and economic motives) on the other. For example, our hopes in the early stages of development for a resource-rich environment which students could access when they needed to, in their own time, on their own terms
126
and at their own pace became necessarily more controlled and limited, given financial constraints. And the realities of the available technologies determined the number and nature of the teletutorial sessions we could set up. Although my principal teaching responsibility for this unit was with the oncampus students, I was involved during the unit’s first semester of Open Learning delivery in a limited number of teleconferences as the ‘expert’ who had written the study guide on one of the theoretical frameworks (postmodern feminism) that students needed to understand. My role was to clarify any points students wished to raise. Thus my personal involvement in teleconferencing was far less than that of some of the other members of the team. However, my involvement with the team was such that I developed a fairly intimate knowledge of the off-campus teaching experience. Often, after our weekly sessions which began at 5.00 pm and lasted for three hours, we would all meet over a few drinks and share our experiences of the evening. The immediacy of these reflections about our experiences and perceptions, whether peculiar to one person or common to all, made possible the virtually unfiltered, raw exchange of experiences. The degree of empathy that was engendered was, I suppose, not remarkable given the long and close professional friendship among team members and our shared commitment to teaching. It was certainly possible for me to feel I had sat in the ‘hot seat’ with my ‘distance teaching’ colleagues—as, indeed, I did during my teleconference sessions.
The Package Each of the role-plays was intended to serve a pedagogic purpose of engaging students via the pleasures of drama: to enact in a concrete manner and by narrative means some of the issues later developed in more academic fashion. In many respects, the materials students received might seem much like the oldfashioned ‘distance’ or ‘external’ notes. They included a series of books, each dealing with one of the conceptual frameworks (critical theory, ecophilosophies, constructivist learning theories, institutional ecology, postmodern feminism) which became a set of ‘spectacles’ that provided different perspectives and foci on two sample document of educational policy or philosophy: the Mayer Report on Key Competencies, and a Statement on Education written by each student. In addition, most of the books were supported by a section of a video, which also included two further segments. One was a discussion with past students about what they had learned and how, including their advice to present viewers about how to manage their learning and best profit from the unit. The other involved the unit coordinator discussing aspects of argumentation and academic writing— substantiation of assertions, organisation of a coherent argument, cohesion within and across paragraphs and the like. (We knew from experience how necessary this was for students returning to formal study years after undergraduate work.) My section of the video took the form of three comical dramatisations or roleplays, each involving a fellow teacher in the unit, Dr Erica McWilliam, playing a
127
part with me. In the first, we enacted a discussion in a lecture theatre about how we should stage a lecture on feminism which would be congruent with its concerns about position, authority, voice, fragmentation and representation, and the like. (In this embodied way, as we moved about the space of the theatre, we also introduced some key concerns that would be taken up in subsequent print discussions.) The second takes place in a psychiatrist’s office, in which a feminist exemplifies the circularity and obsessiveness of her thinking within various feminist theories, when the psychiatrist asks her to play a word-association game. In the third, a student who has encountered feminism returns home in some perplexity to the husband and life which she is now unable to reconcile with her new world view of feminism. She discusses these with her husband while the feminist lecturer in the wings scrutinises her rationalising. Each of the role plays was intended to serve a pedagogical purpose of engaging students via the pleasures of drama: to enact in a concrete manner and by narrative means some of the issues later developed in more academic fashion. (The print materials, however, were also designed in part to surprise and play with ideas in a way that would likewise demonstrate the postmodern. This aspect could have been developed much further had time and funding permitted.) It could be argued that this was our attempt to carry some of the advantages of face-to-face teaching into Open Learning mode—the use of bodies to enact issues, the pleasures of surprise and the play of words, and so on. (These matters are discussed more fully in Morgan and McWilliam 1995.) However, the technology was not used just as an invisible conduit for a small sample of face-to-face teaching. The first video discussion, in particular, drew attention to its own contrivances and to its status as a technology mediating, or rather producing and refracting, another technology (teaching).
Reflecting on the Experience My immediate and ‘virtual’ experience of teaching through technology has left me with several impressions. Some of them have to do with a loss of identity and a sense of fracture. Others have to do with disappointment bordering on frustration even to the point of cynicism. Still others concern an impetus to go in search of more fulfilling ways of interacting with students through technology. Let me elaborate on each of these: Loss of Identity To some degree, we interpreted the imperative to teach through (and not despite or against) the technology as an opportunity to ‘reinvent’ ourselves as differently successful professionals. I know I was not alone in the team in having a strong attachment to a professional personality. The realisation that this could no longer be used in the way that I was familiar with was daunting. Although learning to use certain types of technology was a positive challenge, trying to use technology in a way that supported the use
128
of a professional personality proved difficult and often frustrating. For instance, to put reliance on vocal intonation, pitch and volume as the distillation of an embodied ‘presence’ could be subverted by poor phone lines that kept on causing us to ‘break up’, as the students put it. Disappointments, Frustrations and Loss of Faith Given that such decisions were made independently of the teaching staff and we had to wear the consequences, it was possible to feel disenfranchised. As plans for the teaching of the unit were being made, I felt somewhat reassured that teleconferencing would enable us to engage in some degree of interaction with our distanced students. However, as commencement of unit dates drew nearer, it became evident that the number of students to be catered for was continually increasing beyond our plans (based on earlier figures provided by Student Enrolments). The team often felt uninformed or poorly informed about student numbers, their status or preference for on- or off-campus attendance, since enrolment data often seemed to take a long time to be processed and communicated to us. While it is rarely a pressing concern in on-campus teaching to know in advance accurate numbers of students enrolled for one’s units, such information is critical when teaching is via technology that requires the coordinated ‘real-time’ efforts of teaching staff, technicians and students. This entailed a strain on the budget and forced us to rethink some plans. More packages would have to be prepared and posted off at the last minute—indeed, even after the beginning of the semester, when students were still being enrolled. More tutorial groups would have to be created, in both on-campus and teleconference mode. In the event, this meant changes to the number and nature of teleconferences. Having acted, I think, in good faith with the best information that was available to us, it was disheartening when to some degree we felt that the situation had changed in ways we could not have anticipated or prepared for. Given that such decisions were made independently of the teaching staff, and we had to wear the consequences, it was possible to feel disenfranchised—indeed, to believe that the professional commitment we had made in providing a pedagogically sound and innovative unit was being undervalued and undermined by the influx of students at the last moment and the dilution of the course delivery we had so carefully planned.
129
The Costs of the Exercise and Some of the Difficulties … These ‘hidden’ costs had not been budgeted for as part of our professional teaching work—though certainly any academic expects to go the extra mile in the preparation of quality teaching and we were sustained by our goal of a worthwhile outcome. As may be expected of any new venture, the engagement in technologically mediated forms of teaching was highly demanding both prior to and during the semester. Not least demanding was the commitment of time, an increasingly costly commodity for academics. However, I appreciated the importance of extending my knowledge and skills in the area and remaining open to developments and innovations in the field. Thus, during 1994, I undertook some ad hoc professional development via Open Learning workshops and the like. More specifically, the production of part of the video which accompanied the print package ate into my time, like that of other team members. In the delivery, too, some of the quality teaching we had so carefully prepared was put at risk. Most of the people involved in the teleconferences, including support staff and students, had no prior knowledge of the difficulties they would encounter concerning ‘linking up’. The first few teleconferences were beset by a number of technical breakdowns which had the immediate effect of disempowering those who had expected that the sessions would prove a concentrated and stimulating teaching–learning situation.
… and by way of Contrast Instead of being the questioners, as in a traditional, teacher-centred pedagogy, we were ourselves being questioned in order to clarify points. By contrast, the on-campus sessions were reassuringly familiar (at least for the teachers) in their mode and context. Nonetheless, there was an equivalent newness about the sessions, in that the fewer tutorials for each tended to take the form predominantly of explication, of course materials or (particularly) of the demands of the conceptually and organisationally complex assignment. Instead of being the questioners, as in a traditional, teacher-centred pedagogy, we were ourselves being questioned in order to clarify points or discuss issues which students had already encountered in their materials. Such clarification inevitably took different forms in face-to-face mode, where diagrams and other such visual aids could be utilised, by comparison with the teleconferences, in which we had to rely simply on verbal explication, comparisons and the like.
130
Yet, while I know there are no ready answers, I believe that some will emerge as I continue to remain engaged mentally and physically with the realities and possibilities of teaching through technology. Such intellectual work was only possible, of course, when students were not ‘dropping out’ by loss of lines, or ‘losing us’ by static and other interference. We as a team had to wear the cumulative effect of this and other frustrations—such as the anger of some students when their packages did not arrive until some weeks into the semester. This contributed to a growing sense in the team of scepticism and loss of faith in the decisions being made in the faculty. Some began to voice a number of concerns: Is the faculty compromising quality for quantity by its apparently indiscriminate intake of students? How is the quality of my teaching to be enhanced or even maintained if there are budget constraints over what I regard as a non-negotiable teaching and learning practice such as interaction? How can I best resource myself in terms of time and expertise? These are some of the more difficult questions that I, like others, need to find answers to.
The Evolving Academic As a teacher I am still learning, still becoming who I might yet be. The present phase of my remaking is a particularly challenging one, since I have enjoyed a very satisfying and I believe successful period as a ‘traditional’, face-toface teacher. It is also challenging because of the degree of uncertainty (with all its potential as well as risks) and, to date, the relative lack of expertise and understanding about teaching through technology. What motivates me is a strong desire to engage my students in the learning process through engagement, persuasion and the pleasures and provocations of discourse among learners. I believe that in this uncertainty lie some rather promising possibilities which I am keen to explore. For example, I have become involved in an ‘on-line open learning project’ in collaboration with a colleague in the School of Mathematics, Science and Technology. I am approaching with keen interest and measured optimism some further opportunities in electronic (computer networked) technologies including synchronous and asynchronous dialogues among students and with teachers. The overall challenge, I suppose, is to develop the kind of technologically mediated communication that would enable us to do this, while keeping within bounds the costs in time—to teachers—and finance—to the university. I should add that my learning via this unit development has alerted me to what may be similar needs or concerns, strategies or inhibitions in other learners in equivalent situations of technological novelty. This is already informing some new research projects I am currently undertaking into teachers’ and administrators’ perceptions and uses of electronic, on-line technologies for communication and teaching.
131
I cannot help feeling that we were somewhat limited in our imagination and that we needed someone to help us ‘think sideways’. For example, I have profited from conversation with a colleague at the School of Maths, Science and Technology, who is helping me step outside my customary ways of conceiving of teaching; this is someone who is knowledgeable in electronic communications and its potentials and limitations, but who is also an experienced pedagogue with a fertile imagination and enthusiasm for its innovative potentials. In company with this person and other fellow teachers, research colleagues and students, I am also trying to do some lateral thinking about the conjunctions and mutual transformations among electronic technologies, ‘knowledge’ as content and process, educational institutions and their ideologies, and the ‘professional personality’ of the teacher—or rather, the ‘knowledge navigator’. I believe that the future for us as academics will inevitably involve more and more partnerships—with other academics, support staff and our students—in ways that will transmute the face of teaching and make hybrids of us all—teacher–learner cyborgs.
The More Satisfying Aspects of the Experience Working with a team of teachers committed to a theorised pedagogy was not only crucial to the (relative) success of the unit but was also energising and sustaining. Other members expressed a similar sense of teamwork and its value. Another—and less anticipated—satisfying aspect of my experience has been the learning that I have undertaken or undergone. Some of this I have mentioned above. As well, I have been developing new understandings of how learning might occur through teaching that is not classroom bound and bodily mediated. Given my perhaps inevitable focus so far on acts of teaching and the (dis)embodiment of the teacher, and my limited experience of Open Learning technologies, I am aware that I do not yet have a satisfactory understanding of the means by which students learn in such settings, mediated as they are in ways that must affect the nature of the learning and the strategies learners develop.
Some Needs and Solutions My experience with open learning has brought to my awareness some of the underlying needs of a number of us academics. ‘We’ might prefer to hurry more slowly, and instead of scrambling aboard the bandwagon in a spirit of competitiveness, ensure we get it right and do it well. At the macro level—that is, within the faculty and the institution at large—there should be a shared reconceptualised understanding of what the possibilities and the real potential of teaching in Open Learning mode are. To date there does not appear to be a concerted determination to ensure that any developments are well
132
founded in theorised and agreed principles for sound practice. As a result, a number of academics feel alienated: ‘they’ are imposing ‘their’ (managerialist, do more for less) ways on ‘us’. I believe we need the kind of ‘informed’ leadership which still appreciates and values the constructivist, ‘progressivist’ kind of teaching–learning, which is still the best kind of practice on offer, I believe, despite the challenges levelled at it by some educational theorists and now by ‘educrats’ governed by motives of cost efficiency. The kinds of staff development activities currently available are perhaps too piecemeal or too much centred on technology as tool or magic wand to assist in the more holistic approach to a reconceptualised teaching that I am looking for. Perhaps linked to this macro-level reconceptualising would be the provision of further staff development initiatives, and not just in technologised ‘delivery’. For example, I like other inexperienced academics, might be helped to reconceptualise my planning and teaching for a virtual classroom, for instance through the mode of multi-user dialogue. We might rethink how the technologies make possible different kinds of assessment—of group products or of thinking and development processes. Such support needs to be complemented by university mechanisms for monitoring and appraising the costs—especially of time and effort—to academics involved in such technologised developments in teaching, so that the burdens may be equitably apportioned and the rewards maximised. At an intermediate or ‘meso’ level, I feel that there should be strong, strategic collegial support initiated at the school level—the kind of support that engenders confidence and a belief in and commitment to what one is trying to achieve as a teacher in that school. This might mean identifying and dedicating one or more staff members to develop such professional expertise and then become mentors and resources to others. This in turn entails, at the micro level of a particular unit-team, a need for a consortium of kinds of expertise: pedagogical, technological and administrative. Such conjunctions of knowledges would help academics like me to form partnerships directed at achieving the teaching and learning objectives that we value. Meanwhile, I acknowledge and accept that, for a time and for a number of teachers including myself, there will be quite some discomfort and disequilibrium, as we try to understand and explore the possibilities of new kinds of learning via technologies and as we sort out the assumptions about learning via technologies that we do not find satisfactory or even pedagogically sound. For example, where learning is conceived as ‘instruction’, in the absence of the teacher as instructor, the text stands in for that authority. Perhaps, instead, we should be thinking of the possibilities of learning that may be prompted by the absence of such singleseeming authority.
133
Case Study 2: Developing an Integrated Approach to Interactive Conferencing Darien Rossiter Teleconferencing is a broad term which incorporates a number of different forms of interactive conferencing applications: audio conferencing, video conferencing, audiographics conferencing and more recently multimedia conferencing. Teleconferencing is a methodology rather than a technology, although the teaching and learning approaches followed will be governed by the particular features provided by the technology. Essentially, teleconferencing refers to realtime interactions between people physically separated from each other, through the use of telecommunication technologies.
Background I am currently employed on a casual, part-time basis as the Teleconferencing Officer in the Open Learning Unit at Queensland University of Technology, while undertaking postgraduate studies. Teleconferencing support services for audio and audiographic conferences have been offered by the Open Learning Unit (OLU) on a trial basis since the beginning of 1995. As a pilot initiative, there was no formal duty statement for this position when I began in June 1995, although there was an understanding that the primary role was to advise on and coordinate teleconferences on behalf of the academic staff and to liaise between the university and external service providers. I have extensive experience in the field of communication and educational technology, including interactive conferencing applications within the higher education and training sector. Until recently I held senior advisory and management positions in educational technology within the university sector and prior to that held public relations and instructional design positions in media production and communication technology services. In these capacities, I gained a thorough understanding and appreciation of the range of issues which impinge on the effective and appropriate use of technology, including operational service requirements, teaching and learning needs, management and administration. I have been asked to reflect on the current role of the teleconferencing officer and to consider how such a service might be offered in the future. I believe my background has given me useful insights into the nature of the existing service
134
from a number of perspectives and enabled me to identify issues of institutional significance. Some of these issues include: •
the implications of providing a centralised support service for academic staff and students;
•
educational efficacy of teleconferencing;
•
resourcing a university support service;
•
teleconferencing costs (see Appendix C2A);
•
professional development and training; and
•
facilitating collaboration, networking and creating an integrated support service.
The Current Situation To date, the Faculties of Education, Law and Health have used the service (it should be noted, however, that it has not been widely promoted or publicised). Education is by far the biggest user of the OLU service, accounting for 95 per cent of all conferences, although other faculties use teleconferencing extensively in teaching and learning. Academic staff and students have shown considerable support for the service, particularly for the administrative and liaison functions associated with each teleconference. Academic staff vary in the level of assistance they seek; some only require a contact point for student inquiries or collation of registration forms, while others seek advice on the planning and design of the conference, communication protocols and pedagogical issues. Comments such as ‘having someone else look after all the organisation has made such a difference’ and ‘I really appreciate all the work you’ve put into this’ are not uncommon. Some staff prefer to organise teleconferences themselves, and clearly the current service could not cope if there was additional demand. Currently there is no university policy on the use of a university-wide teleconferencing service, but if such a service was mooted, appropriate input from all potential users should be sought. In particular, lecturers would need to feel confident that a central service would offer some tangible benefits or improvements to the existing situation and that the service would remain responsive and flexible to changing needs. Nevertheless, it should be noted that a number of external service providers would prefer to deal with one centrally coordinated university body.
135
Current Service to Users A Typical Teleconferencing Assignment •
Initial discussion with lecturer about the options and format of teleconference/s for the semesters unit/s.
•
Check students receive relevant information about teleconferences.
•
When possible, obtain accurate student enrolment information and draft unit list.
•
Liaise with students and external teleconferencing contacts (such as Queensland Open Learning Network) to determine preferred and available sites.
•
Draft teleconferencing schedule based on student registrations (received by mail, fax and email).
•
Advise lecturer, Conferlink (Melbourne) and participating Queensland Open Learning Network (QOLN) sites of draft schedule.
•
Update schedule (average of three updates for each unit due to such factors as new registrations, last-minute request to change sites, new number for lecturer, etc.).
•
Confirm final schedule with lecturer, QOLN sites, Conferlink.
•
After the teleconference, seek feedback from lecturer, follow up any inquiries from students, check and collate information about the teleconference, costs, length, successful links, problems, etc.
What are the Important Attributes of this Job? I feel the role of the teleconferencing officer can be best described as working efficiently and informatively behind the scenes to ensure that teleconferences are successful, cost effective and that the desired outcomes can be achieved. In my view, it is absolutely vital in this role to build collaborative working relationships with academic staff and students, and with support and professional staff from within and outside Queensland University of Technology. To do this requires sound ‘people skills’ because a large part of the work involves communicating detailed information, negotiation and liaison. It is important to appreciate the concerns and priorities of others involved in this process, rather than convey an official ‘bureaucratic’ image. Useful personal attributes are patience, an ability to listen carefully and a sense of humour. For example, many students returning to study after a long break or who live in isolated areas are apprehensive about teleconferences and require reassurance and advice about the process. Others have special requests, such as last-minute changes of venue due to work or family commitments. This might involve
136
arranging to take the teleconference call in a hotel room and clearing the arrangement with the hotel staff. Sometimes interstate students make an urgent call complaining about not being connected to the teleconference, only to find they had not taken into account daylight saving or a different time zone Academic staff also need to be reassured that all the technical and administrative aspects of the teleconference have been attended to and that there are adequate contingency plans should problems arise during a session. The interactions between the teleconferencing officer and other support and professional staff are crucial in fostering the cooperative team approach which ultimately determines the fate of each teleconferencing activity. I believe each member of the team must develop a degree of personal responsibility for their part in each teleconference for, without that level of personal commitment, the whole exercise can be jeopardised. In order to develop a sense of personal commitment, it is helpful to get to know the other members of the team, if only through establishing names and background by phone. It is equally important to seek feedback, to follow up problems and to offer appreciation. In short, team members must understand what we are trying to achieve and how they are contributing to the fulfilment of that goal. This position requires sound organisational skills, effective time management, planning and attention to detail. I have found it necessary to develop efficient procedures to minimise human error. For example, I always verify verbal agreements or information in writing, by fax or email. I also make certain that teleconferencing procedures are distributed to students and staff. I obtain information about call costs, problems, numbers of links, etc. from Telstra (Melbourne) on conference calls so lecturers and departmental administrative staff can carry out reconciliation of phone accounts.
Other Issues In the current ‘test’ climate I have made a number of decisions about the level of service given to staff and students on a one-off basis (often in consultation with the academic staff member), while adhering to the basic philosophy of providing a ‘client-centred’ service. In future, clearer guidelines about the nature of this service should be developed in consultation with client groups, which in turn would lead to improved workplace efficiencies. As a part-time employee, developing contacts with academic staff and students can be a slow and tentative process. Some people are frustrated that you are unavailable at the times they attempt to contact you. (Students often want to talk during the evenings when they are home from work, staff during the day; Conferlink officers request that you are on call for teleconferences—many are unaware that the position is only part-time, approximately 12 hours per week.)
137
The demands of this position are ‘seasonal’, as most teleconferences are held during the first half of the semester. This results in an extremely heavy workload during that time, but it does balance out towards the end of the semester. At this time the number of teleconferences falls and then the major task is to collate information about costs and usage patterns.
The Role of Other Professional and Support Service Providers The support and assistance given by the Queensland Open Learning Network (QOLN) is a key aspect of the overall service extended to Queensland University of Technology lecturers and students. The facilities and help offered can enhance the students’ learning experience and provide a cost effective option to the university for those units which have a concentration of students in regional areas. Certainly, in the case of audiographics conferences (simultaneous voice and data connections), the support given by the QOLN Centres is integral to the whole teaching and learning approach. I have made it one of my priorities to develop a close working relationship with Queensland Open Learning Network (QOLN) Centre coordinators and to try to devise working procedures and practices to facilitate this process. This can involve compromise and flexibility on the part of everyone, as Queensland University of Technology cannot always give the required advance notice to the centres and they in turn cannot always accommodate Queensland University of Technology requests. For example, a number of lecturers who have large enrolments offer ‘alternative’ teleconference sessions for students and they prefer a short break between these sessions, requesting a 30 minute gap between bookings (e.g. the first session finishes at 6.00 pm and the second session commences at 6.30 pm). This presents a problem for busy QOLN Centres, who ask that sessions commence on the hour in order to accommodate as many requests as possible from other universities as well as Queensland University of Technology. However, in some units, if we do not use QOLN centres, there can be three or four students from one regional city individually linked into the conference, thus increasing conference call costs. I include this example to illustrate how apparently minor details can impact on the overall operation and to emphasise the importance of regular communication and review between all service providers. Telstra is another key service provider and I have sought direct contacts with staff in Brisbane (management and operators) and Melbourne (Conferlink Masters bookings and billing). Recent organisational changes to Telstra’s conferencing services have made it even more important to establish efficient procedures and to negotiate with Conferlink staff about the type of service we require. For example, rather than accepting basic information on call costs for each teleconference, we have requested—and receive—information about the number of successful and
138
unsuccessful links, the duration and any other administrative charges. The timing and format in which this information comes to us was also agreed in consultation with Telstra’s billing section, after they understood how we used the information and why it was of use to us. To some extent, many of these staff who form part of the teleconferencing team may not be aware of how their jobs impact on teaching and learning approaches which use interactive conferencing. For example, administrative staff who compile data on student enrolments may not be briefed as to how important this information is when drafting the first teleconferencing schedules. Similarly, it is possible that staff in the Information Technology Division, PABX or Communications are unaware of teleconferencing schedules and how disruptions to services, planned or otherwise, can impact on these teaching commitments.
Providing a Well-coordinated and Integrated Service One of the challenges facing all institutions which are experiencing increased demand for and growth in the interactive conferencing services is to develop an integrated service provision model, one which minimises duplication and fragmentation of services across an organisation. Ideally, from the lecturer’s and students’ point of view, they would like a single contact (rather than multiple contacts) to organise the various aspects of the conference. For example, at the moment Queensland University of Technology lecturers must contact different people to organise room bookings, to distribute materials to students about teleconferences, to follow up telecommunication faults, to duplicate audio recordings or to borrow audiovisual equipment. To do this not only requires an understanding of how these elements impact on what you’re doing, but also demands a lot of time and energy in knowing who to contact and what questions to ask. Another benefit of a well-coordinated service is that administrative processes can be streamlined and efficient procedures jointly developed. It has been my experience that, when key personnel and sections are briefed about the goals and requirements of an initiative such as teleconferencing, most will support the common ideal and endeavour to provide a responsive service. As the demand for teleconferencing services grows in response to initiatives in open and distance learning, it is timely to consider bringing together the individuals and groups who assist or are interested in teleconferencing applications at Queensland University of Technology. Such a forum could provide an ideal opportunity to develop cooperative and efficient approaches to advise and support academic staff and students, who are integrating interactive conferencing into the design and delivery of units to off-campus students.
139
Some Personal Thoughts The quality of a learning experience is often dependent on teachers and students having a shared understanding of what teaching and learning is about. Many of the students who undertake courses through ‘open’, ‘flexible’ or ‘external’ modes in universities have wide-ranging expectations about the role of the lecturer, how the course ‘will be presented’ and what is expected of them. Very often in distance education units, an opportunity such as a teleconference is a chance to explore these notions and to clarify with the students their own responsibilities and needs. These needs can be addressed in a number of ways: the provision of alternative approaches to the delivery of information (through print, audio tape, broadcast TV, email etc.), allowing the student choice about the content or the assessment and providing appropriate levels of student support services. When academic staff investigate new or innovative approaches to their teaching, usually the intent is not to replace well-tried and proven pedagogies with new technologies, but to identify the more effective aspects of each and see how they may be combined to achieve better learning outcomes. When trying to assess the relative merits of one approach over another, it is easy to be swayed (or swamped) by the technology. So many support the claim that ‘it is people, not technology that matters’, but so often it is indeed the technology that takes over and expends all our energy. Thus I believe the most important role for the professional and support team is to provide the best ‘customised’ support environment in which academic staff and students can experiment, learn, develop and grow in respect to their teaching and learning. This philosophy has implications for the nature of the professional development and training offered to staff and students. In my view, it is unlikely that universities can create the best supportive environment simply by offering staff and students packaged ‘off the shelf’ courses which are designed to instruct people to operate a myriad of operational features. Far more effective is a flexible approach which identifies a particular individual’s needs and draws on a range of support and training services, from the local departmental level through to the generic courses offered by the institution or even to the wider industry training programs.
Final Observations It appears that a number of teaching and learning initiatives which use interactive conferencing approaches have made great strides towards ‘opening up’ existing units and courses to students. Many of the staff involved have moved beyond the trial phase and now consider teleconferencing to be an essential component of
140
their teaching and learning approach. One of the issues which is attracting increasing attention is how such conferencing activities can be ‘mainstreamed’ into the core teaching and learning philosophy of the university, thereby receiving an adequate share of resource allocation and recurrent funding. Careful examination of these issues raises new questions about who can be connected, how many teleconferences can be planned and whether these newer initiatives can be supported in addition to maintaining the traditional approaches or whether there will have to be new priorities negotiated. For example, if Queensland University of Technology enrols interstate or international students in external units with a conferencing component, is the university prepared to cover the higher connectivity costs associated with these students? Policy and procedures must therefore reflect the university’s philosophy on Open Learning, which it seems is still evolving within a broader climate—one in which the higher education sector, government and the wider community are still grappling with different understandings of the term. It is within this context that the role of the teleconferencing officer is unfolding. As a recent initiative of the Open Learning Unit, it is important to assess the implications of continuing or discontinuing a teleconferencing and electronic communication support service, the level of assistance it offers lecturers and students and how the operations impact upon other support functions. It is also essential to determine the best position for the teleconferencing and electronic communications support role within the university’s organisational structure and to allocate adequate resources for the service.
141
Appendix C2A: Teleconferencing Costs (Data Based on OLU Service, Second Semester 1995) Connectivity Costs These relate to three factors: •
length of call;
•
number of links (lines) and location of sites; and
•
level of service requested.
The length of the call is calculated from the time the first site or participant is connected to the time the conference is terminated. It should be noted that each line cost is timed and charged individually and as all participants may not remain on line for the entire conference, calculating a standard charge per line can be misleading. Teleconference sessions ranged in length from 32 minutes to 131 minutes, with a mean of 70 minutes.
Sites and Lines Conferlink charges are based on the number of lines connected and the location of each site, which is classified as local, intrastate, interstate and international. The great majority of calls were made to locations within Queensland (intrastate), which are charged at 40 cents per minute. A few units had interstate participants (the sites included Western Australia, Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania) and one unit had an international (PNG) link. The number of links or lines per teleconference varied from four to 35; the mean was thirteen. Conferlink applies a standard basic service charge, as well as offering additional services, such as audio recording the sessions. Every booked line incurs a $6.00 set-up fee, regardless of whether the participant is there or not. In some cases, for a variety of reasons, there has been a high non-participation rate in the conference. In a small sample of seven units checked, the non-participation rate (charged but unused lines) ranged from 52 per cent to 10 per cent. Some lecturers requested the audio recording service ($20.00 fee) and the teleconferencing officer used the ‘call back’ service (80 cents per session), which provided the detailed information about costs given in this report. Cost per session ranged from $71.10 to $650.95; the mean was $302.75. Session costs were fairly evenly spread across this range.
142
Comparisons between session costs can be misleading if one does not take into account relevant criteria including: the number of sites and participants; the length of the teleconference; and factors such as booked but non-used lines.
143
Case Study 3: From the Year 2000 Back David Saunders
Background Information David Saunders was recently appointed Dean of the Faculty of Humanities. Prior to this appointment, he had been Deputy Dean, Teaching and Learning. One of his major responsibilities is academic planning through to the year 2000. Since 1975, he has been concerned with developing structures for degree programs that are congruent with the demands of mass education. His motivation then and since has been to provide mature-age students with access to university degrees. Alongside the various managerial positions he has held, he has also maintained the role of teacher. The influence of both these roles appears to be reflected in his beliefs about teaching and learning and the management of tertiary education. It is within this bifocal framework that we wish to tell David’s story.
Catering for Mature-age Students In the early 1980s, David was responsible for the design of a print-based Bachelor of Arts degree. He considered this to be a necessary response to the changing student population, a large proportion of whom were mature-age students. These students typically were juggling a number of competing commitments which would traditionally have prevented them access to university degrees. The printbased degree program was thus an alternative mode of study that met a pressing need. Accompanying his recognition of such a need has also been his recognition of the increasing inadequacy of the Bachelor’s degree and a falling value placed on the Bachelor’s degree—an outcome of mass education. This, he believes, is putting pressure on tertiary institutions to provide further creditations such as diplomas and graduate certificates. Putting the necessary organisational and administrative structures into place in order to provide these creditations has become an important agenda for his current and future work: My [future effort] will be devoted to getting the organisational aspects of resource-based teaching and learning in place and functioning, in a way that does not at present exist.
144
Developing Resource-based Teaching David describes his work in the development of resource-based teaching and his concerns about the future shape and direction of resource-based teaching thus: As the person responsible in the 1980s for driving the faculty’s initiative in offering a print-based degree (the Bachelor of Arts in Australian Comparative Studies, [BAACS]), I learned something about the specificities of the planning and production process required to produce good quality materials on time. The reality was clear: a considerable up-front investment—of resources, time and work—was called for. Also, a strong administrative support system was needed. The work done then provided the basis for the faculty’s Open Learning contributions and for its current commitment to the resource-based mode. Returning to the scene ten years later—this time in the capacity of an academic manager (Chair, Undergraduate Management Board)—I found a lack of policy and, above all, procedures for the pursuit of resource-based work. The collective, team-based character of the 1980s initiative had fallen away, and it had become a patchy matter of individual commitment or commission. This has not succeeded. The task is therefore to restore the up-front investment, something that requires the collaboration of faculty and university levels of management. Current circumstances underline this point. The new graphic media would allow us to build on students’ visual literacy skills as a means of overcoming their weaknesses in print literacy skills, but the costs of any large-scale project going beyond the print-mode adopted in the 1980s are probably prohibitive.
It is clear that David sees the future of tertiary education as including a substantial degree of resource/print-based teaching and its corresponding ‘flexibility of access’. As he quite strongly puts it, ‘access is a crucial issue’. His commitment to the use and development of resource/print based teaching, supported by its past successes, allows the issue of access to drive his faculty’s agenda. But this is insufficient. Like other interested parties, he is looking for broader based support through policies which reflect the common interests and commitments of both institution and faculty. In discussing his beliefs about teaching and learning , there is a suggestion of an interpretation of flexibility that, on the face of it, might appear incongruous with other interpretations. For instance, his advocacy of resource/print-based teaching could be seen by many as a ‘regression’ to past, less flexible practices. To them, print-based teaching is one in which the role of the learner in the learning process is relegated to that of passive recipient rather than active participant. In fact, it would be true to say that, for many, flexibility provides the means by which learning and the learner are able to determine the basis of the teaching practice.
145
The ‘flexibility’ suggested by what David says would seem to be one which does place the learner in a central position, by focusing on what students find useful and on the professional skills that they are expected to demonstrate. However, this approach utilises a teaching methodology which, to many, may appear inconsistent with the positioning of the learner: I’m very concerned about graduate outcomes … the sense of outcomes, not learning outcomes so much as graduate outcomes is crucial … In real terms I think I’m quite committed to nameable skills such as literacy and oral skills … For instance, a subject I teach in second semester runs an oral skills seminar which is pure drill. Students are simply drilled to say things—I mean, it’s pure rhetoric. It’s not student directed at all; it’s totally teacher directed. I found when I did the student questionnaire that, far from the students [these comprised an equal number of Law and Humanities students] finding this very regimented rhetorical system unpleasant, they wanted more. They would like a whole 10 credit point unit of drill, because at the end of it they all come out of it able to, for instance, structure a question in up to seven or eight parts. Now, oral skills are clearly important. I think the skills related to communications technologies are important too, so that too informs my growing sense that the threshold we’ve crossed over into mass education may be more American, might be more skills focused than content focused. It’s important that students are helped to develop such marketable skills which they can apply in a variety of life spheres.
Although he is committed to the teaching and learning of skills, David is not, as might be expected, equally commited to face-to-face teaching which may be assumed to best afford the teaching and learning of skills. He is not altogether unhappy teaching in non-face-to-face environments, particularly as he has questioned the ethics underpinning certain face-to-face practices. No one knew what went on in lectures … when the most horrific things got done without any quality control.
In his own faculty, however, David stressed the support given to team teaching. One of the things that has been strongly supported in this faculty for traditional delivery is team teaching … so that the notion of the black box—we don’t know what goes on in her subject—has largely disappeared. There have been good interventionist planning processes so that what was private in other universities where I’ve worked, what was completely private and sacrosanct—[my] subject, [my] lecture room—has always been open here to the other colleagues in a teaching team or to the faculty as a whole in the planning process.
Both his roles as manager and teacher have clearly influenced David’s views on teaching. It is perhaps as manager that he most strongly expresses his belief that resource-based, or print-based, teaching (terms frequently used interchangeably in the Faculty of Humanities) has more stringent quality control mechanisms built into it than traditional teaching practices. You only have to go through the history we’ve had here to know that the collective planning, design, assessment of course materials prior to their delivery is a
146
wonderful quality [control] mechanism. Everybody has to see what you plan to teach, it’s public up front and I have no doubt about that.
This is not to suggest that he is dismissive of more traditional methods of teaching. I’m not saying that the traditional mode is by definition bad. I think it’s brilliant in any given case. But that is not so public as the collective design and production of resource-based material.
He supports this claim by recalling his own experience in the preparation of printbased materials. Perhaps more in the role of teacher, he explains how one of the outcomes of that experience was to challenge a much taken-for-granted feature in most traditional teaching: Those of us involved [in the preparation of print materials] back in the early 1980s learned enormously in respect to matters such as intelligibility to students. What is intelligible to students? When we had to look at what one another was planning to set by way of study guides or the readings, we discovered that what we had thought was sacred and perfect was sometimes absolute nonsense once it was placed in front of half a dozen of us in a planning group.
Comparing past practice with his perceptions of present practice, David is somewhat disappointed at the shift from teamwork to individualised work and consequently the lack of public scrutiny: The present system has become very individualised, so someone preparing a subject in resource-based mode is really on their own with the help of a design consultant, but there’s no public scrutiny.
Consequently he is now commited to facilitating a ‘better sharing of experience among those colleagues who are writing and teaching in resource-based mode, not only to distribute practical knowledge about the tricks of the trade but also to keep in focus the students’ experience of learning in ways, that for the time being, will remain experimental’.
Outcomes Particularly as a manager, David is concerned with what he refers to as ‘graduate outcomes’. By this he means the ‘destinations of graduates in the workforce’ and the certifications of these graduates. He considers this a crucial aspect of coming to terms with the ‘new reality of mass education’. The ‘new reality of mass education’ that David refers to is one which assumes the inadequacy of a Bachelor’s degree as it fails to sufficiently differentiate its holders from a large section of the population. Providing students with certifications that are designed in tandem with various industries is a drawcard that universities will need to attract and sustain student populations. This concern is consistent with David’s
147
role as manager and the priorities often held in such roles. As David himself says, ‘My priorities are structural rather than pedagogical.’ In the same context, he expresses the belief that: Almost all methods [of teaching] work more or less … I mean I think military training works brilliantly. Historically speaking, military organisations have been the most successful trainers of large populations.
Consistent with this argument, David believes that there is a false dichotomy between teacher-centred and student-centred learning. The student-centred model, he says, has a history that is ‘pastoral and Christian’, which ‘might be appropriate for the social welfare functions of universities because it’s one of our jobs now to care but I wouldn’t want it to be the only model that’s adopted’. And tying this back to technology in education, he is sceptical about mapping educational technologies on to the more student-centred forms of conduct. However, he reiterates his position that ‘healthy pluralism will be just fine on my book … and it will be the future line because we’re dealing with a mass education system’.
148
149
Case Study 4: A Case for Mainstreaming Innovation Gail Halliwell and the Audiographics Project Team When access to higher degree courses is extended to include off-campus students, there should be no diminution of the quality of teaching and learning.
Introduction and Background The audiographics conferencing project began taking shape during 1992–93 in the midst of nationwide, as well as local, institution-based claims that technology would enhance equity of access to university courses. From several ranks, technology was being promoted as the most effective means for increasing access to a university education for students who wished to study from a distance. In the early 1990s, staff in Australian universities were considering how they might respond to the pressure to extend access to all Australians eligible for university entry. Innovative lecturers were already adding audiovisual materials to print packages posted to students. The energetic development of multi-media packages appeared to herald the inclusion of even more sophisticated instructional materials for off-campus university education. While the issue of equity through access appeared to boast high currency with several stakeholders, for many educators it brought to the foreground the issue of the quality of teaching and learning. Specifically, perceived tensions developed between providing access through cost-effective and technology-mediated means and ensuring a high quality of teaching and learning. It was especially important to some teachers that, in opening up access, the value of a group of students discussing an idea among themselves and with a lecturer should not be discarded. When the Faculty of Education at Queensland University of Technology adopted an open access policy for the Master of Education degree in 1993, the impetus was there to take a deeper look at the links between technology, access and pedagogy. The MEd policy indicated that a range of delivery options were to be made available to students. Students could complete the course through full-time or part-time study, and it was structured to attract students to specific Areas of Interest. Coordinators for each of these Areas were expected to develop options that would suit the needs of students who could not attend weekly evening classes. Some Area Coordinators introduced intensive-mode summer and winter vacation study on campus. Others established cohorts at sites where a large
150
number of students were located so lecturers could travel to them. On the whole, however, there was general resistance to offering course materials through traditional distance education delivery modes because this implied limited contact between lecturers and students.
The Response The audiographics conferencing project was a response both to the MEd open access policy and to the teachers seeking entry to the Early Childhood Area of Interest who were unable to attend classes on the Kelvin Grove campus of Queensland University of Technology, either weekly or during school vacations. These teachers were often women living outside Brisbane who were juggling study aspirations and full-time employment, as well as caring for children at home. Many worked in child-care centres, where long hours and only 20 days’ vacation leave per year made it impossible to consider coming to Brisbane for summer or winter schools. These potential students were scattered throughout Queensland and were seldom concentrated in groups of more than three or four in one place. Many were hesitant about undertaking Master’s level study by traditional external modes of delivery, as they wanted closer contacts with lecturers and peers. Equivalent to the desire to cater for students such as these was a concern that a teaching style that was much valued was not lost through a change in the form of delivery. This style utilised the interactions among students and lecturers to encourage learning that was valuable and understandings that were negotiable. It was a style that many lecturers were keen to preserve. Reports that the Commonwealth government was considering establishing a system of ‘telecottages’ throughout Australia raised the possibility for them of working with student groups located at centres equipped for telephone, computer and video conferencing. Late in 1993, interest was heightened when they were invited to the opening of a new audiographics conferencing system installed in the 42 centres of the Queensland Open Learning Network (QOLN). University students have access to network facilities in these centres throughout the state. The potential of audiographics conferencing for creating a form of open access that would meet student needs and enhance the teaching approaches valued by the Early Childhood teaching teams was apparent to the lecturers. So too were the advantages of trialling the use of the equipment as soon as possible. Staff at QOLN were anxious to have the equipment used by universities and offered technical advice and support for a trial in 1994.
151
Preparation Gail and her colleagues take up the story: In December 1993 advice was received that our application for a QUT Teaching and Learning Grant was successful. We were not granted funds for equipment to teach from the Kelvin Grove campus of QUT, so we took up an offer of teaching space and technical support from the QOLN centre in Mary St, Brisbane. Facilities available at this centre included a conferencing room for about eight people equipped with computer, high-resolution projector, large touch-sensitive screen, loudspeaker telephone, scanner and printer. All this equipment , except the large touch-sensitive screen, was available at other QOLN centres, enabling students to interact via simultaneous computer and telephone contacts. They could print off copies of computer slides at the end of the session and use the computer and scanner when preparing their own slides for presentations. We hoped to be able to negotiate the loan of a computer, modem, projection equipment and a loudspeaker telephone for the Kelvin Grove site. Tasks to be completed by the second week in February 1994 were examined. The two team members who would teach the unit experienced both elation and terror at this point—elation that they would be able to trial an approach that would meet the needs of students and terror because preparation time would be extremely short until 14 February, our first teaching night. Our part-time support people quickly got to work and their rapid progress quickly dispelled our worst fears about short time-lines. The production assistant quickly learnt to assemble the equipment and to use the software. The graphic artist employed for a limited number of hours provided valuable assistance in preparing the first computer slides. The technical assistance forthcoming from QOLN proved to be the linchpin that enabled us to be ready for teaching on 14 February. The Network was just getting the audiographics system operational, so we learnt along with their staff. Their technical adviser helped the production assistant learn basic techniques for establishing conference links, for using the scanner to prepare slides from photographs and other colour images and for adding slides prepared with Microsoft Power to the conferencing program. He helped us solve technical problems in interfacing the Kelvin Grove equipment with the QOLN system and was there for lecturers who were exploring the intricacies of doing what they normally did in class, but now by using the touch-sensitive screen to display ‘overhead transparencies’ and a loudspeaker telephone to facilitate group discourse. Contradictory advice regarding minimum equipment for the Kelvin Grove site meant extra stress and delays in getting ready for our deadline. The 386 computers on loan would not interface successfully with the QOLN system and intensive negotiation proved necessary to have a 486 computer assigned to the project for the semester. A high-quality loudspeaker telephone, modem and scanner proved essential, but these were not forthcoming without the intervention of a colleague from another school who was able to redirect some funds from another project into ours.
152
The Queensland Open Learning Network (QOLN) Mary Street centre and the Kelvin Grove site became the two main sites for the location of the ‘largest’ groups of students. The QOLN Mary Street centre was used to link up with students at other Open Learning centres in Toowoomba, Rockhampton and Nambour as well as with the on-campus site at Kelvin Grove. This arrangement made it possible for the unit to be taught simultaneously to students ‘on’ and ‘off’ campus, as well as enable lecturers and both cohorts of students to interact with each other. Eight evening sessions of three hours’ duration each were offered in place of the usual fourteen sessions. It was decided after the first session that one lecturer would be located at each of the two main sites.
Operation The use of the QOLN Centre in Mary St provided a number of benefits. Not only did it give the lecturer access to a touch-sensitive screen during presentations, but it also provided technical support to the teaching team at a time when they were inexperienced in using the audiographics technology for this pedagogical application. The touch-sensitive screen offered the most easily understood way of using the interactive capacities of the computer conferencing software. Using this equipment required similar skills to using an overhead projector and whiteboard. Slides prepared through Powerpoint software or scanned in from photographs and drawings could be likened to transparencies, with the same flexibility for making last-minute changes to the order in which graphics are displayed. The equipment available at all QOLN centres meant that students taking part in the class could sit around a computer screen watching graphics as they were displayed during a lecture or student presentation. It was possible for students to use Powerpoint software to create slides for their own presentations. The group at Toowoomba attempted this. Other students provided draft materials in advance of their presentations and the production assistant prepared the graphics. The scanner connected into the computer made it possible for students to scan into the computer program any photographs or graphics they wished to display during the session. This was a popular facility at Toowoomba and Rockhampton, with some graphics being printed regularly after the session. The sensitivity of the loudspeaker telephone meant that it could be centrally placed in relation to the group, even on the floor. Because there was no need to press buttons or sit close to the telephone when talking, students commented that they soon overcame their initial fears of talking to a piece of equipment and were able to focus on the ideas under discussion.
153
Concerns All lecturers were apprehensive and nervous about using technology. Their concerns included operation of equipment, reliability of the system, adequate training and support, instructional and graphic design requirements, insufficient time to prepare for this approach in addition to their existing responsibilities and the extent to which this approach could provide the appropriate learning experiences for students. The following selection of comments from lecturers illustrates their initial concerns, ranging from pragmatic and practical matters to a forthright examination of inner fears and insecurities: I suppose my advice would be to rethink everything and be totally threatened, totally undone by it … Be willing to have your conventional modes of teaching challenged because the technology will do that. I hadn’t realised I relied so much on mutual feedback and interactions … if you’re really trying to listen to a group out there that you couldn’t read their reactions. I found it very difficult to cope with. It can be an unsettling experience, but I think it is exciting.
Although several comments such as these were typically expressed in the first weeks of working in a technological teaching and learning environment, they eventually gave way to expressions of greater control, confidence and sense of achievement: I feel very satisfied with the teaching and learning that occurred this semester. Some nights you feel elated … last year I was drained at the end of the sessions.
Enabling and Disenabling Experiences Lecturers and students both had positive and negative perceptions of their experiences. On the positive side, lecturers identified a number of outcomes that they regarded as beneficial and enabling. One such outcome—which was unexpected—was that, as a consequence of several technical breakdowns, the students bonded together as a group very quickly, empathising with the lecturer and working with her to get the most out of each session. Thus one of the lecturers described the atmosphere as having ‘a sense of intimacy’ while another spoke of the ‘cohesiveness in the group’. All teaching staff who used audiographics conferencing felt that the group dynamics were qualitatively different from prior teaching experiences. According to the responses of some lecturers it would appear that, during a conferencing session, participants were interacting on two levels. On one level there was collective discussion and
154
sharing; on another there were ad hoc formations of local groups wanting more time to pursue an issue which they did by ‘muting’ out. Occasionally the discussions within these ad hoc groups would be incorporated into the main group for mutual benefit. Another valued feature of audiographics conferencing was its graphics capability. Students reported enhanced learning when it was used and that the visual presentation helped to clarify ideas and concepts. The development of ‘customised teaching strategies’ was yet another important outcome, as it rejected the initial dependence on a more restrictive practice which used tightly scripted presentations. As lecturers became more confident about using the technology, they were able to refocus on their original goal which was to ‘capitalise on the sort of teaching we knew we could do on campus, to be able to do it with technology … we weren’t trying to do things differently, but just not simply lose anything of what we used to have in an on-campus class’. Another positive outcome reported by one student was that the technology made participation and presentations far less intimidating than they might have been in face-to-face settings. Further, the lack of eye contact was an advantage for some students, enabling them to concentrate on content rather than on other participants. Finally, there was great appreciation, particularly by external students, of the opportunity to study in an open learning mode via audiographics conferencing. Two main reasons were cited. First, it reduced the sense of isolation that many external students tend to experience. Second, it enhanced their motivation, particularly because of the degree of involvement it created via group discussions and networking. As may be expected with the trialling of any innovation, the implementation of audiographics conferencing had its share of troubles and less desirable outcomes. In the earlier sessions, technical problems were significant, especially at the Kelvin Grove site where the class was larger than expected, the venue was inadequate and inappropriate equipment resulted in freezing in the computer conferencing; large sections of the first session were thus not received at this site. Also related to this was the physical layout of rooms used, which staff found inhibiting. For instance, the placement of equipment and furniture within the rooms got in the way. Often the layout of rooms was more suited to a presentation format rather than one which encouraged discussion among the group and provided easy access to equipment by lecturer and students. At some sites, equipment was arranged in such a way that it forced lecturers into a presentation mode, particularly if they wanted to use the touch-sensitive screen. The lecturer either chose the presentation/operational control position in front of the screen or sat with the students at their site with her back to the screen. This meant that she was unaware of what was happening on the screen or of the system messages appearing on the screen.
155
In addition, students could not reach the keyboard without physically moving about the room. This discouraged them from impromptu use of the graphics and text features of the audiographics system, because to do so was inconvenient, drew unwanted attention to themselves and interrupted the natural flow of the interaction. The problems related to assembling the equipment in the week prior to the first session also detracted from the presenter’s sense of preparedness. Later in the trial, the technical problems reported by presenters were the quality of the audio conferencing, the disruptive effect of static and the dropout of audio during the Telecom ‘beeps’ which are mandatory while sessions are being recorded. Lack of eye contact and having to split attention between students in the classroom and those on the air continued to worry the presenters. They also found it difficult to balance the multiple demands of displaying graphics, interacting with the class and listening to telephones. Some administrative problems with booking facilities, downloading data and liaising with Open Learning Centres also added to the lecturers’ frustration. Frustration was a common and frequent experience of several lecturers. Much of this was related to the fragmented nature of support services, necessitating dealing with several different departments and sections and resulting in loss of time, energy and patience. In times of pressure and anxiety, which frequently accompany innovation, this can lead to a habit of ‘blame laying’ and an overwhelming sense of helplessness for those involved. Finally, while the majority of on-campus students appreciated the need for equity of access to tertiary education, a few felt that the quality or the nature of their learning experience had diminished. Some felt that the group sizes were too large, resulting in insufficient time for adequate exploration of content. Others felt that linking everyone to an audioconference created a less flexible and less interactive system—less flexible because the option for face-to-face teaching and learning was otherwise constrained by the inclusion of distanced participants, and less interactive because both the technology and the users’ familiarity with the technology was limiting. Characteristics and Features of Audiographics Conferencing Technology The term ‘technology’ is more than the hardware, software and telecommunication lines. It encompasses communication protocols, such as techniques for drawing participants into a conversation or non-verbal means of signalling that a site has a question, along with a wide range of skills which are essential if one is to master this whole approach. Lecturers occasionally alluded to these special characteristics without necessarily understanding the nuances of this new communication protocol. Audiographic teleconference has a formality or a structure—a definite beginning and end that is not quite so obvious in a conventional classroom. (Lecturer)
156
Timing, pace and the length of sessions are very important factors in audiographic conferencing. In relation to the latter, most found the experience a draining one, particularly in the early stages: I think there really is a time limit upon which you can really concentrate. I find it much more demanding [than the traditional classroom] in terms of concentration sometimes. I don’t know what it is. I’m really starting to get zonked after about 40 minutes and an hour is really the limit to that. (Student)
It appears that the nature of the activities planned for the session and the level of experience a lecturer has had with this approach will influence their views on how long a session should run. The degree of experience and familiarity with this communications technology also influenced how lecturers reacted to the delay factor, which is inherent with this type of technology and which introduces a slight but noticeable delay in responses between sites. At the beginning, most lecturers felt slightly uncomfortable with this, a feeling which was exaggerated by the fact that they had no visual cues from people at remote sites. However, the more experienced lecturers adapted to the pauses, feeling less pressured to fill in the gaps and becoming more confident in their own ability to read other signals such as graphic messages and pointers. Many lecturers were also sensitive to what they described as ‘the wasting time’ factor—that is, the lost time at the beginning of or during sessions due to technical failures. They were concerned about the cost and the effect that time delays had on students’ attitudes and their ultimate receptiveness to learning activities, particularly those tasks involving higher order analytical skills and discourse. As one lecturer commented in response to system down time: What we know is that the students are wasting valuable time. They’re wasting time in terms of their learning, a factor which actually mitigates against learning because they are getting irritated by all this sort of formal stuff.
The graphical interface feature of audiographics conferencing is a very powerful feature, particularly its interactive capability. However, its full potential is rarely utilised in the early stages, due to the operational complexity of this feature. Thus the sophisticated graphical capabilities of this system remain largely untested within the context of this study. The audiographics system comprises many components distributed across numerous sites and organisations. In the eyes of the staff and students, ‘technical’ matters embraced hardware, software and telecommunications systems—in fact, any transaction between user and ‘the system’. Responsibility for functionality of each component of the system fell across one or more departments or organisations. Therefore, to achieve a successful conference, all the components of the system have to work together in harmony, whether it be the software, the hardware platform or the telecommunication lines linking everything else together.
157
All lecturers were frustrated with the technical problems and the reliability of the audiographic teleconferences, particularly in the first semester of their use. While some of these problems could be traced to user unfamiliarity or lack of training, it appears a significant number were due to inadequate testing or trialling of systems and software or system breakdown and communication line faults. Regardless of the cause of each incident, the system has yet to reach a stage of reliability where all users, particularly academic staff, feel comfortable with the technology and confident that each session will proceed according to plan. Achieving reliability is a major challenge for all technical support providers (internal and external) if this approach is to be adopted more widely and to be integrated into mainstream teaching. Further, unless this occurs, it is unlikely that the majority of staff will experiment with more advanced applications, as evidenced in this lecturer’s comment: We didn’t really explore the interactive element of the graphics like we had originally intended because you just didn’t have the confidence that you could rely on that [and] build a session around it.
An important aspect of the trial was investigating how much work was involved in translating formats, strategies and resources used for on-campus classes to the demand of technology. Each of these elements is discussed below. Format In 1993, the lecturer teaching the unit involved in this trial began experimenting with a format that would assist students who were travelling long distances to attend classes. Eight evening sessions of three hours’ duration were offered in place of the usual fourteen sessions. In the intervening weeks, students were required to fax or otherwise deliver to the lecturers reflective journal entries based on required readings. These were used in preparing for subsequent sessions. In sessions 6, 7 and 8, students were to make preparations based on reading for the final assignment and use computer graphics to illustrate their commentary. The changes to time on campus and required tasks were favourably received, especially by students travelling long distances. This format was used for the trial. Students assembled at five sites on eight occasions from 5.30–8.30 pm and sent journal entries in the alternate weeks. Strategies Two lecturers shared the usual teaching load allocation for the unit. They practised modelling a discourse style they wanted students to use so that, right from the first night, each lecturer questioned points raised by the other, to encourage debate about ideas. They also modelled using humour and stories about personal experiences to illuminate points raised, aiming for a risk-taking environment where students felt able to voice uncertainties and scrutinise ideas enshrined in early childhood curriculum theory and practice.
158
Resources The literature commenting on preparation for using interactive technologies offers widely varying advice about the time required to prepare computer slides for teaching. For the trial, the advice offered by the technical assistant from Queensland Open Learning Network (QOLN) was followed. In adapting to the demands of the technology, the lecturers began with overhead transparencies prepared in 1993 (making the usual modifications needed every year). Information about the amount of extra work required of lecturers teaching through this medium could be more accurately ascertained using this strategy. Unfortunately, the extra time devoted to assembling equipment and getting it to work meant that the production assistant took responsibility for learning to use the computer programs and for translating the teaching resources. After the semester teaching was completed, however, both lecturers very quickly learned how to prepare their own slides using Microsoft Powerpoint and the scanner. Other staff preparing to teach with audiographics conferencing in 1995 reported that they were finding the process non-threatening as they began learning to use software.
Teaching Strategies, Techniques and Resources Eight class sessions of three hours’ duration on the Monday evening set for oncampus classes were scheduled. On the first night, students received a booklet (under 200 pages) containing a unit outline, time schedule, details of requirements for each session, an extended reference list and a set of required readings. The print materials were regarded as supplements to the teaching program. Their preparation had taken little time as they were essentially a collation of handouts and required readings used during a semester of on-campus teaching. Prior to the first session, copies of the booklet were posted to each QOLN Centre involved in the trial, together with copies of five highly recommended texts sent on an extended library loan. Students were expected to fax reflective journal entries after completing required readings during class-free weeks. The lecturers undertook to provide written responses to the journals and to present an overview of the points raised for further discussion at the next session. It was found that, when the computer conferencing was set up prior to the teleconferencing, students were more likely to ‘play’ with the interactive screen, writing messages to one another or using the graffiti slide to add humorous comments about aspects of their study. This interaction was encouraged, as it helped establish an atmosphere of collegiality in preparation for the group discourse as well as assisting students to become more familiar with the potential of the interactive screen. Further, although the equipment might have been easy to use, class dynamics demanded the creation of strategies to take the place of the eye contact and body language that is taken for granted in on-campus classes.
159
Use of Conferencing Time For the trial, all sites were connected into both computer and telephone conferences for the entire three hours. Different formats for using this time were used. By the end of the trial, however, it was decided that the following year the following format would be adopted for both financial and teaching reasons: •
First hour—full audiographics facilities (both computer and teleconferencing links) using slides which vary between drawing on public access graphics, highlighting points with amusing graphics and taking advantage of the colourful templates in Powerpoint to highlight words.
•
Second hour—group tasks based on video or audio-taped recordings forwarded in advance.
•
Third hour—telephone conferencing links only to be re-established so that issues raised in the group tasks could be discussed.
Staff Preparation While the lecturers in the trial found it relatively easy to use the computer conferencing software, becoming skilled in using it while simultaneously being involved in teleconferencing and facilitating discussion proved to be more difficult. Coordinating all aspects took time, but by the end of the trial the lecturers felt far more confident and proficient. It was, however, very much a case of learning through trial and error. This was to some degree inevitable, as a ‘need to know’ emerged from experience. Staff using audiographics conferencing for the first time require opportunities to familiarise themselves with the software and the processes involved in preparing graphics, but until they know how they will use these resources, they may be unable to make effective use of the typical style of computer training workshop. This technical knowledge is important, but even more important might be the clarification of the type of pedagogy to be used. Once styles of interaction have been decided upon, the technology can be used in ways which support the desired interaction. The technology thus becomes the tool, not the master. The fact that there were two lecturers involved, and that they taught from two different sites, also had positive spin-offs. From the deliberate modelling of a type of discourse in which ideas raised by one lecturer were scrutinised through questions asked by the other lecturer, students were encouraged to critically analyse ideas that were presented.
160
Some Thoughts for Future Practice The implementation of the project has raised a number of interesting issues, including: how best to achieve a desirable level of interaction with the computer graphics, particularly with larger groups of students; the creation of strategies to take the place of eye contact and body language so as to maintain group dynamics; and how best to use conferencing time. As well, issues to do with staff and student preparation for audioconferencing need to be considered. Cost Benefits Although there were both desirable and less desirable outcomes of the project, the evaluation of the trial has established that students and lecturers perceived audiographics to be a viable tool for teaching Master’s level coursework. This, however, brings into focus the difficult issue of cost benefits—difficult because many of these benefits are not easily quantifiable. However, as this technology becomes more widely used, costs are rapidly falling. During the year of the trial, for instance, the price of a modem fell from $600 to $500 from the same supplier. Telstra had also indicated that costs for telephone calls for simultaneous audio and graphics conferencing would soon be halved when new technology required one telephone line in place of the two currently used—one for audio contact, the other for computer contact. The trial demonstrated the effectiveness of the technology and its potential for wider scale use at the Master’s level. It would appear that, if the university institutionalised the approach with appropriate infrastructures and support mechanisms, cost analysis would reveal ongoing and longer term benefits in terms of quality of teaching and enhanced learning for all students, and an increasing number of students enrolling in and completing higher degree study within the institution. Institutional Support and Infrastructure Further, there is an urgent need for institutional support for Open Learning at the higher degree level, which might well entail the realignment of support responsibilities and the coordination of services which are currently accessed separately through sections such as the Open Learning Unit, library, Audio-Visual Services and Computing Services. Some of this may involve a change of duties for some staff rather than the appointment of additional staff. Finally, a critical aspect of the project development involved the services of a production assistant who was able to adapt and evolve with the evolving needs of the innovation. Such a person needs to be aware of the teaching aspirations of the staff and be able to provide information on a ‘need to know’ basis and on short timelines as problems arise. Ideally, this person would have a sound understanding of pedagogy, administration and technology. The ready availability and access of such a person was crucial to the teaching team, most of whom were
161
unfamiliar with the use and demands of interactive technologies and who were working to extremely tight timelines. Although the team had attended an audiographics training session, it found it of no help at all as it did not relate to their teaching interests and needs. The training course model does not suit the types of situations arising during attempts to use technology as a tool, part of an evolving teaching–learning approach. Thus a more reactive, rather than a purely proactive, form of support is recommended. If audiographics conferencing is to be used to extend access to higher degree study, it will be necessary to set in place support procedures that ensure efforts are made to adapt the technology so that it supports the teaching approaches valued by lecturers, rather than assume that pedagogy must be adapted to fit technology.
162
163
Case Study 5: Lawfully Sustainable Frances McGlone Frances, tell me a little bit about your background and how it has brought you to your present position. I have been a lecturer in the Faculty of Law for the last six years. Prior to that I taught Law subjects in the History Faculty at James Cook University for about two years. My teaching ‘career’ actually began in 1972 at a secondary school where I taught History and English. I have to admit that I did not find that episode a very satisfying one. As a result, I decided to change direction and enrolled as a full-time Law student while teaching part-time at a TAFE college. I then practised for five years. Teaching mature-age students was greatly satisfying and far more rewarding for me than teaching high-school students. When my husband and I decided to start a family, full-time teaching rather than full-time practice became a desirable option for the anticipated change in our lifestyle. I have never looked back. In fact, my interest in teaching and learning has grown over these years and I am constantly challenging myself to find ways of making learning easier and more enjoyable for my students. Most teachers have some beliefs about teaching and learning. Could you share some of your beliefs with me? To start with, I believe that students could learn Law without me, but they would not do it as efficiently as I hope I assist them to. I mean, I think that it is possible to put a student in a Law library and say ‘learn’ and some would. As a teacher, I believe I do a number of things that might facilitate the learning for these students and help others become engaged in the learning process. The student is the central person in a learning process which involves interactions with others. These ‘others’ may be teachers, students or educational materials, such as text and videos. As a teacher, I try to get students to interact with ‘others’ as an effective means of interacting with the subject matter. My current practice certainly attempts to do this. Law tends to be regarded by students as being static, but of course it is not. Therefore the more opportunities students get to interact with the subject matter through a range of processes, the better the chances of transformative learning. My students have opportunities to interact with me, with their peers through peer mentoring and with text and video via a CD-ROM and video in an integrated manner. I must stress that integrated here is the key word. The ‘newer’ forms of teaching/tutoring that some of my colleagues and I have collaborated on are integrated into our more established (traditional) teaching practices. In this sense, the former are not ‘add ons’, nor are they ‘replacements’. They are part of an integrated whole aimed at helping students learn better.
164
For instance, I am aware that some people believe that computer programs can effectively replace traditional teaching time. I do not believe it is as simple as that. There are some things which a computer can do well, such as provide information and take a student through varying degrees of interactive experiences. But there are other things which it cannot do. When I teach students, it is not just subject matter that I am teaching them; there are also things such as values, ethics and communication skills that I am sharing with them. As far as I am aware, computers cannot do the latter as effectively. Then again, if teachers are simply delivering material in static fashion, then sure, you can replace that with a computer. Why do you think there is so much interest in ‘flexible learning’ at QUT? Well, there are two reasons. One is a very pragmatic, money-type reason: if you provide students with a range of study options, then they will be attracted to your institution in a way that they won’t be to an institution that doesn’t provide such options. Now that’s the pragmatic argument. The more important argument is the equity argument, which is one of the reasons why I am in favour of flexible modes of delivery and learning. For instance, the more traditional modes of delivery cater quite adequately for those school leavers whose major commitment is to attend university. But, increasingly, there are groups of students whose needs have to be met by greater flexibility because of their many other commitments such as parenting or breadwinning. In other cases there may be certain impediments such as a disability which might make campus attendance difficult, if not impossible. What is your understanding of flexibility in teaching and learning? To me it means that you should have a sort of smorgasbord of ways that students can study in a particular subject or across a course and that they can select how they want to do it. For example, to suit their lifestyle, some may choose to come and do a two-week intensive course, or others may choose to do one night a week. However, I think it always has to have staff–student contact, without which it is not going to work as well as it would otherwise. Computer-based education and multimedia have a definite role to play in this, but not without problems. For instance, issues such as copyright and updating materials are some of them but there are several others. Ideally we should get to the point where we don’t have external students as opposed to internal as opposed to part-time, but we just have students. How you actually manage that, let alone fund it, are big issues. You have been involved in a number of projects aimed at helping students learn better. What has been your motivation? I think with people like my colleagues and myself at Law, it’s our own intrinsic interest in teaching and learning and also our compassion for students, if that doesn’t sound too ‘syrupy’. All of us are interested in providing students with an exciting experience when they are studying.
165
Is there a perception within the faculty that the current client market expects a greater range of offerings which involve a greater use of technology? If so, to what extent has this influenced your work? Certainly there is that perception, but I don’t believe that it has been our prime motivation for developing the projects that we have. Besides, I think that the Law Faculty has a reputation for its dedication to excellence in teaching and learning. You are currently involved in two projects. Could you describe them for me and how you became involved in them? Well, one of them is the Training and Implementation Program for First Year Student Peer Mentors. The other is a computer-based project which we have integrated with the peer mentoring program. But let me talk about the peer mentoring project first. The first major objective of the project was to develop a program which would be integrated with the other teaching and learning strategies utilised in two full-year compulsory subjects, Torts and Contracts. The qualitative objectives were to promote student adoptions of deep (transformative) approaches to their learning of substantive law, to assist in their related generic skill development, such as an ability to reflect upon the nature of the law and share ideas with others, and finally to increase their autonomy whilst encouraging them to work and learn cooperatively with their peers. Each of the subjects has an annual enrolment of approximately 450–500 students. The enrolment when we first started in 1994 was about 350. The peer mentors are students who have already successfully completed the subjects, that is, they received a credit or better. They are trained in techniques which allow each of them to facilitate weekly group meetings of approximately eighteen students. These peer-mentored group meetings are entirely voluntary, and are in addition to the normal scheduled lecture and seminar commitments. Generally in these meetings, the students review their preparation of the materials for the immediately following seminar and identify areas of difficulty for clarification in the seminar. In the absence of the tutor who is also responsible for assessment, students feel less intimidated about discussing their problems and difficulties. One of the outcomes of these discussions is to collectively have a set of questions that the tutor can address at the seminar. This collective representation gives
166
anonymity, which is crucial for some students, whilst making efficient use of seminar time. An additional benefit of the program has been the enhancement of the peer mentors’ communication and interpersonal skills, which has in turn benefited their own employment prospects. The peer mentors are selected on the basis of a written application and an interview. The selection criteria are good communication skills, an ability to empathise with a wide range of students and an understanding of the role of a student peer mentor. We expect that these students are themselves effective learners, so the learning strategies that they generally use are relevant to our selection process. High achievers will not pass our selection criteria if they are unable to demonstrate empathy for a range of learners, particularly poor to average students, as it is this group that appears to benefit most from the program. The peer mentors are given a training program which includes a two-day training workshop. They have initial weekly then fortnightly meetings of peer mentors with the project group members and periodic follow-up training sessions. As I’ve said before, the program is totally integrated with the other teaching and learning strategies used in both subjects. In Torts, for example, these include weekly one-hour lectures, from the second week of the subject, weekly one-hour student peer mentor group meetings, and immediately after that meeting, a twohour staff-led seminar. The same material is covered in the lecture, with an emphasis on structure and interrelationships of the material covered, in the student peer mentor session, with an emphasis on the students evaluating how well they have understood the material and its application to real life problems, and in the seminars where the emphasis is on correcting and modifying the student’s knowledge and understanding of the materials. As a result of the project, we have produced a 20-minute video which depicts a fairly typical industrial and motor vehicle accident. It also contains scenes involving a police officer, a solicitor and a judge who are attempting to solve the legal problems raised by the facts of the accident. The video is used in the early lectures in Torts as an introduction to the subject and to help students relate the content of their texts to the real world. The video is also on a CD-ROM where there are multiple-choice questions for students to answer on the legal issues raised by the information presented on the video and on the law of Torts more generally. This provides individual feedback to students on their progress in the subject. How did you get the idea of peer mentoring? I thought it up really as a result of my observation of students. When I used to raise a question with them and suggest that they discuss it among themselves before responding with an answer, it was quite wonderful watching them engage in serious, not idle, debate and clearly enjoying it.
167
How was the project funded? We secured a CAUT grant for approximately $41 500. Did you anticipate any difficulties in the implementation of such a program? Yes. In fact, in our original application for funding, I indicated that we believed that the possible obstacles to the success of the program would include academic staff resistance, managerial staff resistance and student resistance. Let me elaborate on each of these. There is a minority of academic staff that may be reluctant to surrender control of student learning to the students themselves. I think this is probably related to the individual academic’s perception of their role as a teacher. On the other hand, there has been managerial support because of the success of the program. This is most clearly demonstrated through continued funding for the project by the faculty, some of which is directed to remunerations for student mentors. With students—and again this relates to a minority—there is a perception that if they are not being given the answers, they are not learning. However, with clear explanations to these students of the role of student peer mentors, this problem has been overcome. I should add that, although participation in this program is strictly voluntary, we have on average a weekly attendance of 85 per cent. Have you been evaluating the outcomes of this program and if so how? In Torts, for instance, as lecturer-in-charge and project leader, I meet for one hour each week with the ten student peer mentors involved in that unit. As a result of the meeting, I am able to distribute to the seven other members of the teaching team details of the difficulties students are experiencing with the subject’s content. A similar procedure is used in Law of Contract. We also used a student survey administered in lectures in the last week of first semester. The results indicate the pedagogical value of the program as described by students. What has the response to this program been? Well, the peer mentors and the twelve staff involved in the teaching of the two subjects are enthusiastic about the program. I am aware, however, that what teachers and students believe the learning outcomes to be may not always be consistent with the actual outcomes. Nevertheless, our belief that the program has qualitatively improved student learning in the two subjects is also supported by a student evaluation of the program.
168
Students have appreciated the non-threatening learning environment—or, as one peer mentor describes it, ‘private study done in a group’. The level of questioning at staff-led seminars has improved considerably. Students are doing a lot more questioning than either they or we as teachers are customarily used to! As well, students are more eager to answer each other’s questions during the seminars rather than automatically deferring to the academic. There is also a general perception that the program has contributed to their greater understanding of the law. And importantly, because of the high participation rate in the program, the overall level of preparedness at seminars is considerably better, since most students have already been actively engaged in the subject matter. This is not something which occurred previously, when students went straight from the lecture to the seminar. Of course, there was an expectation that students would individually prepare for the seminars, but only a minority did. Aside from that, peer mentors also claim benefits in their own development. These range from their acceptance of professional responsibility for the duties they are performing as mentors, to their skills of positively managing groups of people, and improved general communication and interpersonal skills. As for the faculty and the university, both have enthusiastically supported the continuation of the program both within the faculty and for similar programs across the university. Also as a result of this project, I am now a member of the committee involved in the allocation of funds and the provision of assistance to those introducing these programs. So I am really pleased that my experience is being put to good use. The faculty has further indicated its support of the program by commissioning an independent evaluation of the program by Professor George Gordon of Strathclyde University, Scotland. Perhaps you could now tell me something about your multimedia project. Chronologically, the multimedia project was conceived before the peer mentoring project. There were three main reasons for wanting to develop a multimedia package which comprised a video and a CD-ROM. Firstly, we were looking for effective learning environments for increasingly high student–teacher ratios. We wanted them to be interactive with the ability to provide feedback to students. This was particularly important for our off-campus students. Secondly, we were conscious of the language-related learning difficulties of our students from nonEnglish speaking backgrounds and wanted to help them. Thirdly, we wanted to produce a video that would help with the students’ contextual understanding of the study of Torts and the Law. We were pretty confident that we would get a CAUT grant for the project, as it was ranked number one by the university. But we didn’t. However, we did get a Teaching and Learning Large Grant from Queensland University of Technology worth approximately $45 000.
169
How did you envisage using the multimedia package? When we originally put in our application, we were a bit hazy as to the details of how we would incorporate the package into our mainstream teaching program, or whether we would expect students to use the package in their own time. We were driven essentially by those objectives that I stated above and were of course convinced that they were worthwhile objectives. But, as both the peer mentoring and the multimedia projects got underway, we soon recognised a natural slot in the peer mentoring project for the CBE component of the multimedia package and this is how the two projects have become somewhat integrated. So it is really interesting how projects can themselves be ‘creative/generative’! The other component of the multimedia package is a video which the teachers use in lectures and which I feel is a great learning aid for all students, but especially our students from non-English speaking backgrounds. Also, whereas we had originally anticipated the use of the multimedia package to cover a ten-week course content, once we started work on it, we realised that we had funds to cover about 75 per cent of the first-year content. Now I said we had money, but it took more than that to actually put the package together. Our time and energy, individually and as a team, were heavily drained. Could you describe for me the kind of teamwork that went into the development of this project, the different roles and responsibilities you each assumed, some of the decisions you had to make and the sorts of difficulties you encountered? With both projects, the contributions of the other members of the teams were critical to their success. This was true from the very early developmental stages of the projects through to their continuing development and refinement. The major difficulty was always insufficient time. The major resource was the support of colleagues and management. What has been the response to this project? Excellent. Interestingly, the students have been very supportive of the projects per se, but also of the fact that we teachers are interested in examining what we are doing and how we can improve what we are doing. Whilst there will always be the odd complainer, by far the majority are interested in what we are doing. Having been involved in these projects and having had a fair share of both rewards and difficulties, what might you say to someone thinking of doing something different or innovative compared to their more ‘traditional’ practice? Any professional position worth having is going to have its own rewards and difficulties. It’s what makes the job worth doing and enjoyable. Practice as a solicitor similarly had its share of rewards and difficulties. Teaching is an important part of what we do as academics. Just as we try to be innovative in our research, so we should be likewise in our teaching. What is now regarded as traditional might have been regarded as innovative in the past.
170
And for yourself, what have been the personal and professional rewards? I think the simple answer is that I enjoy my job and being involved in these projects has contributed to that enjoyment. I think this enjoyment is good for my students and myself professionally and for my family and myself personally. I believe that as a result of the implementation of these projects your thinking about certain aspects of teaching and learning are developing. Yes indeed. One of them is the evaluation of student learning through these different media and forms. This is something that I am really interested in investigating. For instance, are there differences in the sorts of learning which are promoted through the different types of teaching and learning strategies or programs? Finally, what thoughts do you have for the future of this faculty and QUT itself in regard to adopting more flexible modes of teaching and learning? That both will remain consistent with their mission statement and that for QUT to be competitive, it will continue to explore ways of increasing the flexibility of its curriculum offerings.
171
Case Study 6: Crossing the Technological Divide Michael Ryan In this case study, Michael is captured in conversation with one of his former colleagues (‘G’) as they reflect over some of his experiences related to the implementation of an electronics communications project. The aim of the project was to upgrade the software and backup services to the Faculty of Education’s postgraduate external students. M: Look at where I am. I’ve been on this amazing journey and I’ve met all sorts of people along the way but here I am—in the midst of a familiar crowd, except they are not quite the same as before. G: Sounds like a case of deconstructing the familiar. Tell me, Michael, what is it about these people that appears different to you? M: Well they are people that I recognise as my colleagues, though having said that, the Faculty of Education is a large one. Still, we have been known to extend the usual courtesies to each other, acknowledging each other’s work and showing an interest. But what’s different is that these people are quite curious about my work and are looking to me for answers to some rather new and unusual questions—questions that I don’t think even they knew they would be asking. G: Now Michael, you seem to be forgetting that you’ve been involved in some rather innovative work which has crossed a number of long-established boundaries and certainly extended the frontiers for postgraduate non-campus bound students. M: Have I? Oh well I suppose I have, but it’s been long overdue and might I add, not without obstacles shooting up at every turn. Setting up electronic communications and backup facilities for these students hasn’t exactly been a picnic. Perhaps I could be accused of a certain degree of naivety in assuming that most people at an institution such as this would give student learning the priority that it deserves. But clearly, bureaucratic structures and their preservation, regardless of their efficacy, seem to take precedence. For goodness sakes, I had a student from Mt Isa call to say that a password for access to email and Internet would not be sent out to him and that he had been directed to come on to campus to pick it up. It’s taken almost three years to establish a system whereby students can have this access via our central computer host through an account that is set up for them. G: I presume that you stated your objectives quite unambiguously to the powers that be?
172
M: But of course. We wanted to upgrade the existing but less efficient services to some of the faculty’s postgraduate external students. These services would include electronic mail and Internet access as well as software and backup for problem solving. Look, up until 1995 these students were linked by Auspac provided by Telstra. It seems rather ironic that, although we’re known as a ‘technological’ institution, the technologically related services that we had been providing to students were somewhat archaic and prohibitive. G: I recall you telling me that, as it turned out, you and your team shouldered the responsibility of some pioneering work in respect to both your students and to the telephone company involved. Didn’t you say that getting a toll-free number organised was a ground-breaking experience for Telstra? M: (Laughing) Oh yes ... wasn’t that an eye opener for all of us! And yes for our students too, the software and backup services that we provided them were a first. Mind you, we used some of our funds to buy modems for students who didn’t have them because we were really anxious that nobody would be disadvantaged in any way, or at least in ways that we had control over. And as for drama, we had plenty of that too with computer systems crashing with such regularity—it’s a wonder we didn’t organise our social lives around them. But I must tell you of this particularly demoralising incident which probably represents the nadir of my academic career. I had invited a fellow lecturer and his doctorate students for a ‘try me out’ session where they were connected up to the system. Well the system crashed not just once, but twice. And as if that wasn’t enough, being the unrelenting technopedagogue that I am, I invited yet another group of students a couple of weeks later. I don’t have to tell you what happened, but ‘nerve-quirking’ would be a euphemistic description of my reaction. How it is possible for things to be run so badly is beyond my comprehension. G: Quite, quite. Accelerating the balding process for you is one thing, never mind the effect it might have on students, particularly those who share only a virtual space with you. To drop out would seem like the saner option. Yes, I wonder what the ‘learner suicide’ rate is like in Cyberspace? M: You might well ask. My work has involved taking risks, one of which stretches students’ willingness and ability to keep the faith to the limits and beyond. The relative success I’ve had has been with students who have kept the faith, and the majority of these are already quite technically competent. So they are a bit more willing to ride out the rocky road, and get going when the going gets tough. But there are a lot of ‘learner suicides’ too, either because of a lack of faith in themselves or lack of faith in the teacher or sometimes both. Worse still, those who lack faith in themselves often blame themselves for technical failures and the inability to work the system competently. And by the time I hear of the ‘suicide’, it’s too late to reassure them. I suppose it’s jolly good fortune that, as yet, we haven’t had any ‘pedagogue suicides’—or at least I haven’t heard of any bar my close call!
173
G: There is a lesson, no doubt, in all of this. One’s enthusiasm and noble intentions could go awry if the risks become too great. Although one wouldn’t say that one is devolving the process of teaching to technology, one has to appreciate the fact that technology can and will influence the processes and outcomes of teaching and consequently of learning. Tell me, Michael, do you feel confident that the number of ‘learner suicides’ will drop once the ‘system’ gets over its teething problems? M: I’d like to believe that it will, but not without some shake-up of the existing service structures of both the Information and Administrative Services. G: Let’s not forget, too, that this wave of technologically mediated teaching may be just that—a ‘wave’ alongside other ‘waves’ of teaching, including the more traditional, technology-independent forms of teaching. Some people, including both teachers and students, will be caught on the crests of this wave; others will fall into the troughs. We have to be careful that the former—such as yourself, Michael—don’t get too carried away and the latter don’t drown in a pool of frustration, failure and hopelessness. M: I don’t think there’s any danger of me soaring to unreachable heights, not in the milieu of bureaucracy and economic rationalism that I find myself in. But your warning is not misplaced. It’s easy to be mesmerised almost by the razzle-dazzle of technology, a state that unfortunately can push the matter of ‘learning’ and its effective mediation into the background. Which is why I am both thrilled and awed by one of the rather unexpected outcomes of my work. I was expressing some of those feelings earlier when I observed that the same people whom I’d been working alongside for years are asking new questions and asking them of me. Most of these people are earnestly seeking ways to take advantage of the opportunities that technology might offer to help their students learn. I can’t help feeling too that, lodged somewhere in that equation, is a desperate need to know that any kind of change must, at the very least, maintain existing standards of teaching and learning. Most would be ecstatic if they could see change actually enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. But that would be asking rather a lot. G: There is a reason for that of course. The integrity of the practitioner seeks resonance with the outcomes of that practice. The practice of teaching with or without technology must produce unmistakeable echoes of quality learning, particularly as the kinds of changes that you’re referring to are not without costs, personal and otherwise. Thus the concern with the effort-cost:outcomes ratio is a perfectly understandable one. M: You’re telling me. I know how much time and energy I expended in trying to set up an efficient access system for my students—that in addition to my normal teaching duties. I also know that several of my colleagues have experienced such personal drain. I won’t claim that this might have been avoided, but I’m certain it did not have to be as depleting. On the other hand, I am aware that in certain schools the teachers have been better protected and
174
supported, both financially and in terms of being given time out. So their journeys have tended to be more pleasurable. No doubt my critics will say that I perhaps bit off more than I could chew and for that matter that I was under no imperative to do anything. But as far as I’m concerned, I was responding to a need of my students in the best way I saw fit, having solicited the advice and support of the dean and the Division of Information Services. If this project had been such an unrealistic one with less than promising outcomes, I don’t think I would have had their support, or the grant to develop and implement it. And you know, at a certain stage, with a little bit more effort—difficult as that might be at the time—you can make considerable gains which, if attempted at a different stage, would almost surely inflict substantial financial costs. At a time when ‘cost-effectiveness’ seems to be the most frequently chanted mantra, you’d think that my efforts to practise it would be appreciated. G: Now, now Michael—you are getting cynical in your old age. Dare I challenge you to put that cynicism to work? M: With all due respect, I think I beat you to it and challenged myself. As a result, the policy adviser to the deputy vice-chancellor is actually taking notice of my work and, more importantly, the thinking behind it. I must admit I have been quite encouraged to see some of that thinking reflected in some papers he has written in regard to teaching and technology. G: I congratulate you once again, on your achievement. I believe some of that thinking is permeating the hierarchy of this institution, but to what extent it may be too early to say. However, it must be very reassuring for you and many of your colleagues to know that the reigning powers are now acquiring a sense of how vital some aspects of teaching and learning are. I am thinking particularly of the interactive nature of good practice—something I understand that many of you value greatly, and consider to be non-negotiable; I know I did when I was still teaching. M: You know, for many of us—and especially for those who are attempting to displace some of their face-to-face teaching with more technologically mediated practices—our experiences have caused us to examine some of our underlying assumptions about teaching and learning. For that matter, it has made us aware of some of our beliefs and the assumptions to which these are tied. Our recent experiences are challenging some of these beliefs and assumptions. For instance, I know some of my colleagues have had grave concerns that the learning outcomes of face-to-face teaching practices would not be achievable through more technology-mediated practices. What they are finding, however, is that, although there may be initial difficulties with learning to use technology, the quality of discourse need not be compromised. In many cases, there are claims that it is actually enhanced for a number of reasons.
175
G: Well I know, for instance, that when I was teaching, many of my distanced students appreciated the ‘anonymity’ afforded by technology. For them, it enhanced concentration and confidence to participate in discussions in ways that face-to-face teaching had not. M: Yes, that’s quite a common experience. So really, the move towards opening up access to tertiary education has had a number of significant benefits for our students. And while the uncertainty and turbulence affecting those in managing and teaching positions will not disappear overnight, I believe the vast majority of us are game to rise to the ‘new’ challenge. And that is how to make technology work for pedagogy. G: Absolutely. And I’d just like to pick up on something else you just said, Michael. I think it is sometimes inexpedient to make such stark distinctions, as some people are prone to doing, between managing and teaching. You, for instance, have ‘managed’ an entire component of your teaching through close and sometimes uncomfortable contact with the multiple layers of management as well as the several bodies of technical and administrative services that operate in your institution. In you and in your work, these layers of management have become seamless and the multifarious services have fused into a fine orchestration of a much-needed service to your students. You crossed the technological divide by speaking the languages of teacher, administrator and technician—no mean feat, by all accounts. Driven by your belief in teaching for learning, which you gratuitously employed, you are now ‘managing’ technology as a tool for teaching and learning. All this has placed you in a position of being able to help and support those of your colleagues who share a similar belief. Many of them, unlike yourself, are novices in their use of technology for teaching. So in some ways, I think you’re only just beginning to evolve into a role yet to be defined and one which I believe has exciting promise.
176
Case Study 7: Flexibility Through Independence Stephen Colbran Extract from Australian Lawyer, February 1994
Leading the World in Legal Teaching A Queensland law school has developed a revolutionary law teaching system. don’t get into the habit of learning by Imagine you are a law student, studying rote. limitation of actions. The third module requires you to analyse You are sitting in front of a computer the facts in the context of the Limitations screen. You bring up on the screen a of Actions Act. You are required to detailed discussion of the law. identify the limitation period, determine whether your client has a limitation You read some of that, then you think problem, and then advise your client of that you would like to look at some other his or her position. part of the lesson so you go through the lesson, roving over the topic as you feel Should you make an error the program like it. will identify the error and enquire whether you wish to revise that area of You can bring all the cases and statutes in the law in which your problem arises. full text onto your screen at the click of the mouse. You can go to any page in the The fourth module teaches you how to case, print the case, save the case to disk, write a better examination answer, and cut and paste quotes into your electronic the fifth involves you in playing the role study guide, let an electronic voice read of counsel in an application for an the case to you, search for specific terms, extension of time within which to bring and even hit the help button to view your an action. lecturer in video telling you the points in the case you should look-out for. The program sends you a brief which contains instructions to counsel, court You bring up on the screen the second documents, draft affidavits, client module of the program. statements and evidence. This is a video segment in which you see your client explaining the facts of the case. You can analyse the client’s body language and even view the circumstances giving rise to the action; for example a traffic accident or factory fire. The facts are automatically altered each time you use the program so that you
Having mastered the brief, you are then placed before a chamber judge with an ‘attitude’ towards procedural issues. You are questioned, for example, on the basis of the court’s jurisdiction to make the order, on the material you will read, and on costs.
177
You are able to program the structure of your counsel’s argument in light of what opposing counsel argues and what the judge requires. The judge gives a judgment depending upon how well you have argued your case so you really need to think about what you are doing.
He sees students enjoying the following benefits: •
They will be able to study at their own pace wherever they have access to a computer.
A final module contains a multiplechoice examination specifically designed to identify your weaknesses and also to tutor you on any areas of weakness discovered.
•
The system helps overcome the dual problem of lack and primary teaching material and increasing class sizes.
•
Education at a distance can be given with increased quality.
If this all sounds a bit far fetched, you will be interested to know that this computer program is already in use at the Queensland University of Technology Law School.
•
There will be stimulation of critical thinking and increasing computer literacy.
The system has been developed by Stephen Colbran, a lecturer at QUT. The QUT Law School is leading the rest of Australia in the development of this kind of software. Mr Colbran sees the multimedia system enabling the combined use of video, sound, text and animation—to bring to life for law students what would otherwise be unimaginative presentations of dull subjects. He describes the multimedia process as a revolution in practical legal education and one which has enormous implications for the way in which continuing legal education may be conducted in the future. Mr Colbran says law firms will also be major beneficiaries of the revolution. Precedents, client marketing, in-court presentations, and communication with clients are only a few of the areas likely to be drastically altered by the use of multimedia.
For academics, multimedia is seen as widening the scope for innovative teaching practices and requiring students to be no longer merely passive observers but forcing them to interact and think about what they are doing. Mr Colbran says possible disadvantages are that multimedia may be perceived as a means of eliminating discussion between academics and students (but this should not be allowed to happen) and that there are costs involved in developing the software and problems for students who do not have access to computers. Despite these shortcomings, the system has generated much international interest. Mr Colbran recently visited the United States and the United Kingdom where the system was presented at and favourably received by a number of universities including Harvard Law School, Kent College of Law, University of Illinois, and participants at the 1993 British and Irish Legal Eduction Technology Association (BILETA) Conference held at John Moores University, Liverpool.
178
Background I am a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Law at Queensland University of Technology. Prior to joining Queensland University of Technology, I worked as a tutor at the University of Queensland and also practised in a law firm. I have authored and co-authored books on certain subjects in Law and have an ongoing commitment to remaining active in legal circles, both inside and outside the academic setting. In the last three to four years, I have become increasingly interested in the use of computer software and electronic communications in teaching, mainly because I believe the traditional lecture format to be a rather ineffective way of teaching.
The Project In 1994, my growing interest in the use of software for teaching, as well as my perceptions of future trends in education, led me to invest my time, money and energies into experimenting with computer technology. An initial curiosity about testing the potentials of multimedia grew into a desire to produce something that could be used to help students learn. Specifically, I was attempting to develop a program that would help students develop sound understandings of procedures and the rationale behind these procedures in a Law subject called Advanced Civil Procedures. A rather intensive period of experimentation resulted in a CD-ROM Limitations Program that at the time attracted considerable interest, both locally and abroad. It was a pretty novel program designed for Law students which involved video clips of courtroom scenes, an interactive component requiring students to make decisions or judgments (as they would have to in a court), to examine the reasoning behind these decisions and to obtain feedback as to the appropriateness of these decisions. Unfortunately, for logistic and administrative reasons, the product could not initially be used at Queensland University of Technology, although it had gained recognition in the United Kingdom, where I was invited to present a paper on it. It is, however, being used at Bond University and I’m pleased to say will be used at Queensland University of Technology next semester. Even though the project was developed as a CD-ROM, it has been made available on hard disk and students will be able to access it from a server on campus.
Use of the Product The program was designed for use by fourth-year Law students. The exact details have not been confirmed yet, but ideally I would like both internal and external students to be offered the same teaching and learning program. The idea is that it will replace lectures, but it will be used in conjunction with tele-tutorials and written exercises. As a long-term goal, I would hope for a greater use of the
179
Internet for synchronous and asynchronous conferencing between students and teachers. I say this because experience has shown me that students don’t often use the services of a lecturer until about three-quarters of the way into the semester, when exams are just around the corner. Through the Internet, I am hoping to encourage students to have more regular and ongoing interactions with their teachers and peers. However, for the time being, I expect that the teaching program for this subject will make use of tele-tutorials because of the small number of students who actually do have access to Internet facilities.
Developing the Product The exercise was an incredibly time-consuming one! Technically, it was extremely difficult, particularly for a rather new computer user, as I was when I first began. I talked to a great number of people, asking a huge number of questions and seeking advice. I read a great deal and literally spent weeks puzzling over programming procedures and concepts. It’s not an exercise for the faint hearted, nor for the technophobe! Fortunately for teachers who do want to expand their teaching methodologies, templates for products such as these can be made and adapted to suit the content and teaching objectives of users. A useful strategy for the development of this product was to base the design on a simulation of an authentic legal practice. So it was a very practice-orientated design rather than a theory-driven design. The development also involved several important decisions which, broadly speaking, would come under two categories: pedagogical and technical. Some of the former decisions had to do with teaching objectives and learning outcomes. In my mind, these were pretty straightforward decisions. Basically, I wanted students to grapple with the practical aspects of law and develop skills in thinking and procedures that would enable them to practise successfully. In regard to the latter, there were just an endless number of decisions from determining the limitations of various programs and the use to which they could be put to choice of layout and speed. I would say that the most difficult aspects of my project were the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and of equipment. But to balance that, it is certainly very empowering to overcome hurdles, both conceptual and technical (such as equipment blowing up!).
The Benefits It took me approximately eight months from start to finish alongside my other professional commitments—and I do have many, both within and outside the university. But it has had several payoffs.
180
For one thing, I have developed a range of skills which I can now quite confidently, and at far lower cost (both time and money-wise), use for future projects. I mean, I have a tremendous sense of achievement in producing something that required the acquisition of so many new skills. For students, I think that it provides them with a great opportunity to see and hear knowledge in practice, but on their desktops, and engage in the construction of their own knowledge by interacting with the graphically presented content. Speaking more futuristically, it is creating a means whereby students can engage with course material outside the boundaries of a campus, if they so desire, while preserving— if not enhancing—the quality of learning. This is not to say that interactions with teachers and other students are not important—I believe they are. But I believe that we are now looking at quite valid alternatives to face-to-face teaching to enable those kinds of interactions and, as I’ve said before, Internetting is certainly one of them. I also believe that this product was one of the reasons why the university was ranked number one in the Good Universities Guide in 1993. To some degree, it became a marketing tool for the university. Visiting academics were always shown the product and many people kept coming back to see it again. Of course, the faculty has a number of similar products now, but back then in 1994 it was rather innovative. In this regard, too, being invited overseas to present papers relating to the product was good for me personally and I expect for Queensland University of Technology too. Additionally, as a result of the product, the university purchased equipment that it expected would be used for further development of similar products. So I presume other lecturers wanting to experiment can do so at far less financial cost to them than it was to me!
Why Individual Rather than Team Effort? I tend to think that teamwork is often dependent on funding for the development of any project. While that in itself is not a problem, having to rely on continued funds to sustain a project is not desirable. What happens when the funds run out? Will you be left with a product that is outdated and not easily upgraded? The costs are considerably lower when you acquire skills yourself rather than rely on the expertise of others. Now I can well appreciate that not many people would be able to, nor even want to, acquire the skills that I have—and understandably so. But those of us who can and do might be able to provide a service to others who can’t and/or won’t, but who wish that they could use similar products in their own teaching. One such service could be the preparing of templates which can be tailored to suit individual needs. I am aware that, with individual innovations, the resulting product moves with the innovator and this can certainly be a drawback. But then I think that team efforts too can fall over if a team member leaves and a certain expertise leaves with him or her. This is a difficult question, I admit.
181
My Advice to the Brave and Daring If you are contemplating something like this, talk to people who have been down this track. Give yourself plenty of time—easier said than done, I know, but one way or another you will be using it! And try to produce something that you can upgrade and sustain yourself with your existing and newly developed skills.
182
Appendix 1: Letter to Potential Participants __
183
184
Appendix 2: Letter Accompanying Feedback Synopsis
185
186
Example of Feedback Synopsis Flexible modes of delivery, technology and academics’ practices in the Faculty of Education at Queensland University of Technology Perceptions of Interviewed Lecturers Fifteen lecturers with teaching responsibilities within the Queensland University of Technology’s Faculty of Education, and varying degrees of involvement with that faculty’s Open Learning initiative, were interviewed by Lucy Lopez during the period of October–December 1995. The interviews were semi-structured around a series of questions/issues. In developing this synopsis, we have attempted to identify issues that are relevant to the project’s objectives, rather than to attempt to provide an overview which explores issues from the perspective of the interviewee or their particular role. Within Queensland University of Technology, the term ‘open learning’ is most often used to refer to a set of practices associated with the term ‘flexible modes of delivery’. Within this synopsis we have used the term ‘open learning’ when referring to perceptions of particular practices, and the term ‘flexible modes of delivery’ to refer to the broader intentions of the changes in educational and organisation practices of significance to our project. Contextual Picture Queensland University of Technology is a large multi-campus university, with over 27 000 students and 3100 staff, of whom over 1400 were employed as academic staff (1995 data). The lecturers whose views are shared here were members of the Faculty of Education (approximately 150 academic staff), while that faculty redeveloped its Master of Education (MEd) course in order to offer it in an ‘open learning mode’ in addition to the more traditional ‘face-to-face mode’ of teaching. They were drawn from six of the faculty’s seven (1995) schools—the academic units responsible for the allocation of workloads including the development and implementation of subjects. All were involved in teaching subjects in the MEd course. Ten had prior experience of teaching in a distance education mode, while eight had prior experience in more technologically mediated forms of ‘open learning’ before they became involved in the Faculty’s MEd open learning initiative. Only three had no prior experience of teaching in alternative modes to face-to-face teaching. Collectively the group has contributed to the development of over 20 subjects MEd in the ‘open learning mode’.
187
The style of ‘open learning mode’ in which subjects were offered varied greatly, although all relied on print as the primary means of sharing information with students. One used video-based information, another audio-graphic based information, and several included compulsory face-to-face sessions. Student– student and student–lecturer interaction for off-campus students was a feature of most (but not all) subjects, with interaction supported via audiographics, teleconference, computer-mediated conferencing, and face-to-face practices. These differing experiences and practices are reflected in the differing perceptions that these respondents shared, and particularly in their perceptions about the nature and potential of ‘open learning’, and their consideration of pedagogical issues. Rationale for ‘the Move’ All interviewees see the move to open learning as having been initiated by the faculty (towards the end of 1993), rather than their schools, and see it as motivated primarily by issues of competition (with other higher education institutions for students) and government pressures—largely from the federal government. However, several respondents had been involved in ‘open learning initiatives’, including the use of relatively complex forms of technology, for some time before the faculty’s decision. In turn, there was a perception that the faculty’s move was one over which they had no influence—and, in several cases, their involvement was against their preferences. On the other hand, the message received from the faculty tended to be ‘you know you’ve got to go open learning’, but this was said without any sense of what this actually meant in terms of the practices that the faculty wanted to support. The rationale for their personal involvement tended to focus on issues of equity and access, and the opportunity that open learning strategies provided for a positive alternative to the more traditional distance education practices in which they had been involved. Several were motivated by negative experiences as a student of more traditional ‘distance education’. Where technology was used, the focus of that use was on the opportunity to use it to facilitate interaction. Thus the move to adopt open learning practices was seen as likely to lead to improved levels of student satisfaction and quality of learning, with related positive outcomes for them as lecturers.
188
Particular Reasons for ‘The Move’ Previously the difference between on-campus students and off-campus students was massive—the adopted strategies increased the equity between these two groups: •
The strategies have reduced the number of contact hours for on-campus students.
•
Students now have a degree of choice in the way they approach their studies. − On-campus students have received the open learning materials for the first time.
•
It allows for collaboration between off-campus students, which is far more effective than someone working in isolation.
Thus, it is an attempt to work towards the notion of the autonomous learner, particularly challenging the ‘culture of dependence amongst on-campus students’. It is clear that those lecturers who had invested greatest efforts in developing innovative open learning resources and interactive strategies believed that the success of the move depended primarily on the quality of the student–lecturer relationships that their work supported. Consequently, it seems appropriate to claim that their work was ‘relationship’ rather than ‘client’ centred, and that in reflecting on that work they recognised that their own sources of satisfaction, not just those of their students, needed to be addressed in order for it to be sustainable. Design of ‘their Move’ In all cases the transcripts suggested that the actual practices adopted in the final design were an outcome of the particular set of beliefs about teaching and learning held by the individual or the team responsible for the design. As a result, there were many enthusiastic accounts of practices which involved the exploration of those beliefs, and the opportunity to actively experiment with alternative approaches to teaching in ways which were consistent with them. In particular, for those with prior experience of distance teaching, the move was experienced as an opportunity to develop strategies which were more professionally satisfying. For them, it offered the opportunity to extend the availability of on-campus practices to off-campus students. On the other hand, one respondent indicated that they felt no pressure at all to adopt anything beyond the traditional text-based ‘distance education’ approach.
189
Particularly satisfying aspects of face-to-face teaching •
the spontaneity that it allows;
•
great value in ‘people being together in a room’;
•
the excitement that physically and intellectually animates students as a result of their discovery of ideas;
•
working with students, dialoguing, promoting growth and greater knowledge;
•
‘block teaching in summer or winter schools is particularly satisfying because you get very close to your students’; and
•
the instant feedback.
This is the ‘flexible’ version of open learning—designing approaches to offcampus teaching which reflect lecturers’ educational beliefs, and using technologies in enabling ways. Thus there is a strong endorsement of what respondents see as ‘the principles of open learning’. It is obvious that, while a number ‘got excited about technology’, very few seemed to believe that open learning was necessarily concerned with technology. That is, they believed that technology could enhance open learning and make it easier and more productive, but ‘the essence of it is not technology, the essence is in the word open’. On the other hand, there is little valuing of the term ‘open learning’, with some expressing the opinion that it is a misnomer and/or a covert reference to traditional distance education practices, which are seen as limited and unresponsive to students’ educational needs. However, what is more interesting is that none seems to have found their concerns over its ‘pedigree’ an impediment to their personal initiatives. That is, while they tend to be dismissive of the term, they are enthusiastic about the possibilities that the faculty’s move has allowed. Thus it does seem that these lecturers had a sense that they could be flexible in their approach to ‘open learning’. Perhaps this says a lot about the organisational climate in which they experienced this move—an issue which should be explored further.
190
Particularly satisfying aspects of ‘open learning’ approach •
establishing lines of communication with and between students:
•
greater sense of who the student really is, particularly through teleconferencing, as opposed to ‘a name on a page’;
•
stronger sense of student progression;
•
sense of student participation and appreciation of teleconferencing medium is ‘almost palpable … quite a wonderful experience’; and
•
student enthusiasm for it;
•
the record of interaction/participation that it provides—making not only the planning but also the implementation stages visible.
In addition, the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery seems to have offered a range of very significant professional development opportunities, although no respondent spoke of it in those terms. For example, for many respondents, the move led to their active exploration of particular technologies to facilitate interaction for off-campus students, something which they would not have done as a matter of course. It has also led to a greater focus on the quality of the resources they have prepared. While it is clear that this version of flexibility tends to be idiosyncratic and teacher-focused in terms of the initial design, most respondents indicated that they were both extremely sensitive to student feedback on the effectiveness of that design, and actively responding to that feedback. Thus engagement with student feedback was providing the opportunity to reflect not only on the value of particular practices, but also on some of the beliefs that underlay those practices. This is reflected in suggestions of backwash effects into on-campus teaching. For example, one respondent indicated that their involvement in the open learning work had led them to reconsider their on-campus practices—particularly in terms of their clarity. Their involvement has helped them to clarify what a community of learners looks like, and to recognise that student engagement in the critical analysis of ideas was more noticeable in the written than the verbal context. It also led some respondents to pay more attention to the knowledge that all students bring to their learning. Another noted that it had reinforced the notion that the starting point of teaching is ‘what is problematic for the student’, and that this was most obvious only after students had interacted with ideas. Hence on-campus teaching should be focused more on interaction than on information delivery via lectures.
191
Comparison of Face-to-face and Open Learning In the context of a move to decrease the difference between students’ experiences, some respondents indicated that they ‘wouldn’t distinguish between them … [because they] just involved different sorts of relationships’. These positive perceptions focused on the opportunities to ‘use the technology in ways that are innovative’ ... to ‘use interactive television or longer telephone calls to compensate for the “warm fuzzies” of eye-to-eye contact’. There was a belief that the quality of teaching had, at worst, remained constant for on-campus students, and been greatly enhanced for off-campus students. In line with the point made above, one respondent indicated that, while the interactive aspect of teaching is non-negotiable, there must be a knowledge base on which to base that interaction. Thus the opportunity to have on-campus students read materials before attending workshops had tended to increase the quality of the interaction in them. On the other hand, while the two modes share many similarities, lecturers had found it difficult at first to decrease their reliance on body language and eye contact with students, particularly where the lecturers attempted to transfer successful face-to-face strategies—such as promoting discussion, encouraging debate, personal sharing of topics being discussed—to the technologically mediated contexts. This required greater effort and concentration on obtaining feedback. This problem was compounded when teaching involved interaction between on- and off-campus students. In one case those difficulties were alleviated in the second year due to: •
the lecturers feeling more relaxed, more tuned in;
•
a more vocal group of external students; and
•
the lecturers working harder at building up a sense of community, and establishing protocols for contributing to discussions.
On a more positive note, these lecturers suggested that the combination of oncampus students with off-campus students broadened the perspective of everyone, a benefit anticipated, but not to the extent that was realised. Other lecturers mentioned the increased importance of humour in technologically mediated communication. Design of ‘the Move’ In most cases, lecturers sought to apply similar strategies to those that were successful in face-to-face situations. Efforts focused on creating an environment where students felt at ease to debate, raised issues/problems, and shared different perspectives on the same problem. Again, these approaches reflected the designer’s beliefs about learning. Several noted the importance of being able to articulate those beliefs as part of their teaching processes, particularly at postgraduate level. This continuity between belief and practice is exemplified in the view that decisions about teaching should be made in response to the question ‘how it is one
192
is to promote [the desired] kind of learning?’ However, responding is problematic given the need to create ‘learning packages’, and given that current notions of packages are grounded in a very old-fashioned notion of what knowledge is and what learning is. These notions place a priority on information presentation, and its ‘uptake’ by students as ‘fixed information’ presented as non-negotiable— ‘words that don’t move’ and ‘decontextualised certainty’. This was the mentality of ‘Take this pill and you will be changed’. Clearly, beliefs such as these are difficult to address, but this respondent indicated that ‘the move’ helped to appropriately focus attention on issues related to text and mediation. It was also very apparent that the design challenged the assumption that all ‘external study’ had to be limited to a written format. Instead, lecturers sought to exploit the available technologies to achieve the sort of pedagogy they desired. Here the gap between preferences, promises and realities caused considerable difficulties. The actual limitations of the availability, reliability and capacity of the selected technologies caused many to initially regret their decisions to incorporate technology into their pedagogy. They mentioned physical exhaustion, nervous tension and technological breakdown as outcomes—‘paw prints on our pedagogy’. For one, the use of technology meant that their work was ‘reigned in rather than free to flair out’. In addition, the move to adopt new technologies required that old strategies had to be adapted to the new medium. For example, one respondent noted that inviting interaction in a teleconference setting required different invitations to those used in face-to-face settings. Beyond those experiences, there were other costs associated with the achievement of each design. Most mentioned that they underestimated the time and energy required. One noted that the continuity required by the design meant that, even though they were required to teach only part of the semester’s course, they had to attend all sessions. Thus the actual workload was greater than the officially recognised one. Others noted that their availability for student contact had to be far more flexible, with after-hours access meaning phone access at their home. Of course, the time-costs varied from design to design, as did the attitude of the lecturer to that cost. Some accepted the cost, and were relatively dismissive of those who complained. Others anticipated it, and deliberately avoided the incorporation of strategies or technologies that would have required more time to adopt. In addition, a number of respondents indicated high levels of anxiety when considering the use of ‘high’ technology. One spoke of feeling disempowered— profoundly unskilled in terms of their capacity to consider and/or use that technology—while at the same time feeling deskilled with respect to their original face-to-face practices.
193
Whatever the particular experience, it is clear that there was a positive relationship between the available time and the consideration given to alternative modes of delivery and support—with little time leading to little consideration. The same might be said of the opportunity to consider responses to the designs. That is, while feedback was important, lecturers had to have both the time and the encouragement to learn from that feedback, and to make appropriate responses. There was considerable disquiet at the apparent withdrawal of support from particular subjects and/or practices because of perceived shortcomings during initial implementations. Lecturers believed that they could both improve the effectiveness of their use of technologies, and reduce their cost, but they had to be given the support to continue the development of appropriate strategies. A related perception involves the view that lecturers had to learn from their experience of teaching more flexibly through technology before they could focus on helping students learn in that context. That is, there is a sense that, during the initial experience of teaching in an unusual medium, it was inevitable that lecturers would find it difficult to ‘teach’—they would be too busy learning. This provides an entirely unexpected rationale for staff development. Of particular concern is the perception that academic managers have withdrawn support for technologies that support interaction, given the centrality of interaction to most designs. There is a fear that this indicates a move back to more traditional distance education practices—practices which are contrary to the beliefs that motivated the flexibility evidenced through the interviews. A related concern over time involved the operation of various university procedures in time-frames which obstruct more flexible modes of delivery—a ‘feeling of entrapment by a range of procedures which you have no authority to change’. One respondent mentioned that a student at Mt Isa was told that they would have to come to the Gardens Point campus to be given a new password to allow them access to the university’s computer network as an example of a ‘culture of control of all technologies that are centrally based in the university’. Another raised the issue of ‘subject accreditation’. The university policy, and the time taken to meet the related procedures, makes the revision of subject teaching materials to respond to student needs very difficult. Similarly, the procedures involved in student enrolment are seen as incompatible with the more flexible approaches being adopted by the lecturing staff. Outcomes of ‘the Move’ A number of very positive effects of the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery have been noted earlier, particularly the increased equity between on- and off-campus students. The backwash effects on on-campus teaching were also noted. Specific advantageous to on-campus students include: •
the extra preparation invested in sessions; and
•
contact with a broader range of students.
194
One respondent noted a ‘conceptual change’ that was reshaping their teaching in several senses. At one level, their involvement had led them to explore the issue of evaluation. Beyond that this lecturer expressed the opinion that they are reconceptualising their approach to student diversity. Rather than teaching to accommodate their particular needs and also meet the requirements of the course, they were attempting to take the individual needs of their students into consideration and reshape the content of the subject. The obvious conflict with university requirements in terms of subject accreditation was noted earlier. Further, they identified a shift in their thinking about the appropriate intentions of postgraduate teaching from developing an interpretative mode of thinking to a critical mode of thinking in their students.
A Health Warning We were given so much room we hanged ourselves.
Supporting ‘the Move’ Irrespective of the amount of support accessed, the move to adopt technology was stressful. That is, those who had most support do not appear to have had a troublefree experience. Indeed, the ones who had the most trouble-free experience were those who used least technology. There is a sense that neither support staff nor academic managers appreciated the need for technology to become invisible within the learning environment. That is, there is a failure to appreciate that each failure of technology completely interrupted the pedagogical process, and tended to frustrate both lecturers and students. While lecturers must continue, students can give up. Advocates of technology seem not to appreciate that its widespread adoption is dependent on more than just its availability. Many respondents commented on the poor quality of the communication links, and some expressed the view that support staff seemed not to understand the time-frames within which they were either planning or teaching. For the latter, there was a view that support should address both academic and technological issues, instead of the current separation of these. The most complex applications of technology involved the greatest levels of sacrifice by the ‘innovators’. In several instances, these were also the applications which involved the greatest element of collaboration between the innovators and support staff. Accessing the expertise of the latter reduced the need to develop ‘technology skills’, but those support staff could do little to help with the pedagogical skills. The value of support staff who could coordinate the organisational and administrative requirements was mentioned.
195
More messages •
We’re jumping too fast, leaving the clientele behind.
•
We need ‘to hurry more slowly’.
•
We need ‘to be helped to imagine otherwise’.
In terms of staff development, a number of issues were raised. One respondent suggested that, within schools, several lecturers could take on the role of becoming ‘open learning experts’, and then mentor their peers. This would help with issues of content/discipline specificity. A second respondent indicated that there was ‘not much point in doing an in-service course three or four months ahead of time and learning some skills and being expected to use them later on’, without practising them in the interim. Rather, there was need for an ‘ongoing process of support’, and ‘assistance when needed’. There is a sense that the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery has increased respondents’ interest in professional development. Some indicated that they were now interested in exploring additional modes of delivery and technologies. Some would like to know more about videoconferencing and setting up email facilities for their students. Others mentioned an interest in the design of effective print materials—how to make materials more ‘reader-friendly’. The point is that, for the majority, their involvement has increased rather than decreased their willingness to explore technology, although it is clear that they want that exploration to be in the service of quality learning, not just to satisfy their curiosity. Several respondents suggested that there could be considerable benefit in attempting to link up with ‘outside’ users of information and communication technologies—for example, in health and primary industries—and to share learning and understandings with them. Looking to the Future Some staff perceive that ‘universities have stagnated’, and that the move to adopt more flexible modes of delivery represents a ‘breath of fresh air’. Thus any move to decrease the flexibility of the practices that have been developed would be seen negatively. There is considerable fear that concerns over costs will lead to either a loss of interactivity in either face-to-face teaching or in more technologically mediated forms. In a sense, this is a fear of prioritising ‘information delivery’ over other aspects of education. The corresponding hope is that ‘One day I’ll give a lecture to people all over Australia and they’ll talk back to me.’ There is a consistent theme within the interviews that lecturers are being asked to do more and consequently have to set priorities on the ways in which they use their time. In this context, some tend to set their priorities in response to their perceptions of the university’s priorities, which are seen by them as overwhelmingly focused on
196
matters of research productivity (i.e. publication). These lecturers saw no incentive to commit extra time to preparing open learning subjects or resources; indeed, they believed that to do so would be to send the wrong signals to the university. For those who had set priorities which focused on their teaching, none mentioned any expectation of being rewarded by the university. For them, the rewards were more personal, and from their students. As one lecturer stated, ‘I want to arouse students to have a great love affair with knowing, be it in an actual campus with building, or virtual space.’ To their surprise, they had found that this was possible in both settings. Their concern was that academic managers whose priority was to ‘bring in as many [students] as you can, and make sure they get a credential’ had no such priority, and were tending to actively support the creation of a climate in which their intentions were seen as elitist and/or indulgent.
197
198
Appendix 3: Symposium Documents Symposium Overview The Symposium on Flexible Modes of Delivery, Technology and Academics’ Practices was a key feature of the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs Evaluations and Investigations Program, and was organised collaboratively between Griffith University and Queensland University of Technology. The one-day symposium was held on Wednesday 10 April at Queensland University of Technology’s Kelvin Grove campus. The purpose of the symposium was to share the analyses, case studies and outcomes of the project with participants and interested university staff, prior to the preparation of the final report for the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Our notion was to ensure that the perspectives of interviewees and members of staff had been correctly interpreted, as well as gaining feedback on the relevance and significance of the draft recommendations. In late February/early March, formal invitations were extended to all project participants, key figures within Griffith University and Queensland University of Technology who then ‘targeted’ university staff and guests from the wider community (Department of Education; TAFE’s Open Learning Unit). Nine project participants were approached as possible case study candidates. All registered participants were provided with a copy of the draft recommendations and overviews of the nine case studies prior to the symposium. Our aim in doing this was to facilitate high levels of engagement between the participants and ideas/issues raised in the materials provided. This approach proved to be most fruitful. A total of 46 people attended the symposium: 25 project participants; 10 faculty members; and 11 ‘targeted’ invitees. Overall, there was an astounding level of interest shown within both universities. Inabilities to attend were accompanied by requests to be placed on a mailing list for any materials generated from the symposium and the project. The symposium consisted of four parts: 1.
An initial overview of the project, guest speakers, a brief introduction to findings, recommendations and each of the case studies.
2.
The morning sessions I and II provided participants with the opportunity to discuss drafts of several of the case study reports.
3.
The afternoon sessions I and II focused on discussion of the draft recommendations.
4.
The symposium concluded with a well-attended plenary session.
199
Session I focused on four ‘developed’ case studies where attendees were provided with the case study text and invited to discuss related matters. Pro forma feedback sheets were provided where attendees could respond to the following issues: •
interesting points of case study;
•
best features of case study;
•
areas of improvement; and
•
the issues that should be reflected in the report’s recommendations.
Session II focused on five less-detailed case studies with the same set of issues considered. The rich data generated from these sessions strengthened the final drafting of the case studies. The afternoon sessions addressed the draft recommendations. The first afternoon session was structured so that attendees were in ‘interest groups’—as academics, managers or support staff. The second session involved the groups mixing. Once again, pro forma feedback sheets were provided to consider the following areas: •
‘messages’ conveyed by the recommendations;
•
usefulness of messages to attendee’s role/s;
•
under-emphasised or omitted messages;
•
over-emphasised messages;
•
suggested recommendations; and
•
additional comments.
All sessions were highly interactive as participants engaged with the differing perspectives of their colleagues as well as providing feedback on the value and usefulness of both the draft recommendations and case studies. The Flexible Modes of Delivery, Technology and Academics’ Practices Symposium played a key role in the fine tuning of our report and recommendations. It provided us with a highly effective vehicle ‘to check that we had it right—that we were heading in the right direction’. Moreover, it exceeded our original expectations and provided us with a plethora of rich information on ‘where people were at’ and ‘what their needs were’. Unexpected outcomes were many and varied. Feedback (both formal and informal) indicated that attendees greatly appreciated the experience to ‘see’ what was going on, and ‘who was doing what and how’. The day was structured around the sharing of ideas, experiences and feelings, which assisted participants in locating themselves within a bigger picture. The value of sharing such experiences and intentions across faculties and institutions was immeasurable. The symposium represented a catalyst for many (including us) in viewing a path for future meanderings. The networking that went on and the new support alliances
200
established among attendees was another very positive outcome. The demand for greater access to information/support sessions such as the symposium was made very clear by all those who attended, and those who could not. A strong need exists for more forums like this symposium. Feedback to the symposium was overwhelmingly positive. Additionally, the symposium stimulated interest from people who had heard about it ‘on the grapevine’ and were keen to access any information (papers, copy of report) they could get their hands on. Overall, the symposium well and truly served its purpose in meeting the goals of the project, providing one and all with plenty of ideas and issues for future possibilities in the deployment of flexible modes of delivery and technology, and the revisualising by academics of their practices within the wider university context.
201
Invitation
202
203
Plan for the Day’s Activities Today’s Program 9.00–10.00 Welcome and Overview
Room: B201
•
Initial welcome by Professor Alan Cumming
•
Overview of the day’s aims and activities by Peter Taylor
•
Overviews of the project’s aims and significance Professor Paul Ramsden Assoc. Prof. Gillian Whitlock Mr David McCann (DEETYA)
•
The project’s procedures and outcomes by Carol Quadrelli
•
The case studies (including brief comments on each) by Lucy Lopez
•
After today—using your feedback and developing the report by Peter Taylor
10.00–10.30 Morning Tea Discussion of the Case Studies 10.30–11.30 Session 1: (max of 20 participants for any discussion) Case source
Chair of Discussion
Room
Darien Rossiter—teleconferencing etc Frances McGlone—CBE + peer mentoring Stephen Colbran—individual CBE work Wendy Morgan—transitions
Peter Taylor John Bain Roy Lundin Paul Ramsden
B202a B202b B222 B225
until 12.30 Session 2: (max of 15 participants for any discussion) Case source
Chair of discussion
Room
Darien Rossiter—support teams David Saunders—face-to-face Gail Halliwell—audiographics Gillian Whitlock—flexible practices Michael Ryan – interactive computing
Carol Quadrelli Roy Lundin Susan Wilson David McCann Lucy Lopez
B202a B202b B222 B225 B236
12.30–1.30 Lunch
204
Discussion of the Recommendations 1.30-2.15 Academics Managers Support staff
2.15-2.45
Session 1: Common Interest Groups Rooms: B202a, 202b, 222 Rooms: B225 Rooms: B236
Session 2: Sharing across Interest Groups
Rooms: B202a, 202b, 222, 225, 236
2.45-3.05
Afternoon Tea
3.05-4.00
Plenary session chaired by Lucy Lopez Room: B201
Reflections on the Symposium (3 minutes each—same for all other contributors) Gillian Whitlock David McCann Susan Wilson Peter Taylor Reflections from other participants Final words—Carol Quadrelli
205
206
References Acquarelli, K. and Mumme, J. 1996, ‘A renaissance in mathematics education reform’, Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 77, pp. 478–84. Attewell, P. 1996, ‘The productivity paradox’, The Australian—Higher Education Supplement, 27 March, p. 25. Baron, J., Thiele, D. and Hintz, E. 1995, Following the Yellow Brick Road, Implementation and Evaluation of Flexible Learning Systems at the Tea Tree Gully Campus of Torrens Valley Institute of TAFE, NCVER, Adelaide. Bates, A.W. 1995, Technology, Open Learning and Distance Education, Routledge, London. Bloland, H.G. 1995, ‘Postmodernism in higher education’, The Journal of Higher Education, vol. 66, pp. 521–59. Boot, R.L. and Hodgson, V.E. 1987, ‘Open learning: Meaning and experience’, in Vivien Hodgson, Sarah Mann and Robin Snell (eds), Beyond Distance Teaching Towards Open Learning, The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, Buckingham. Bromme, R. and Tillema, H.H. 1995, Special edition: Fusing Experience and Theory, Learning and Instruction, vol. 5, no.4. Caladine, R. 1993, Overseas Experience in Non-Traditional Modes of Delivery in Higher Education Using State-of-the-Art Technologies: A Literature Review, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra. Cohen, D.K. 1995, ‘What is the system in systematic reform?’, Educational Researcher, vol. 24, no. 9, pp. 11–17. Darling-Hammond, L. 1993, ‘Reframing the school reform agenda’, Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 74, pp. 753–61. Darling-Hammond, L. and McLaughlan, M. 1995, ‘Policies that support professional development in an era of reform’, Phi Delta Kappan, vol. 76, pp. 597–604. Elmore, R.F. 1996, ‘Getting to scale with good educational practice’, Harvard Educational Review, vol. 66, pp. 1–26. Evans, T. and Nation, D. 1992, ‘Theorising open and distance education’, Open Learning, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3–13.
207
Fleisher, F. 1995, ‘Between postage stamps and digitalization: The changing role of educational broadcasting’, Educational Media International, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 18–20. Gitlin, A. 1990, ‘Educative research, voice, and school change’, Harvard Educational Review, vol. 60, pp. 443–66. Gitlin, A. and Margonis, F. 1995, ‘The political aspects of reform: Teacher resistance as good sense’, American Journal of Education, vol. 103, pp. 377–405. Goodman, J. 1995, ‘Change without difference: School restructuring in historical perspective’, Harvard Educational Review, vol. 65, pp. 1–29. Green, A. 1995, ‘Technical education and state formation in nineteenth-century England and France’, History of Education, vol. 24, pp. 123–39. Hartley, D. 1995, ‘The ‘McDonaldization’ of higher education: Food for thought’, Oxford Review of Education, vol. 21, pp. 409–23. Hashweh, M.Z 1996, ‘Effects of science teachers’ epistemological beliefs in teaching’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 33, pp. 47–63. Hollingsworth, S. 1989, ‘Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach’, American Educational Research Journal, vol. 26, pp. 160–89. Holt, D.M. and Thompson, D.J. 1995, ‘Responding to the technological imperative: The experience of an open and distance education institution’, Distance Education, vol. 16, pp. 43–64. Johnston, R. and Challis, K. 1994. ‘The learning relationship: A study of staff development and satisfaction in relation to distance learning teaching’, International Journal of University Adult Education, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 62–76. Krugel, T. 1993, ‘How professors develop as teachers’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 18, pp. 315–28. Latchem, C. and Pritchard, T. 1994, ‘Open Learning: The unique Australian option’, Open Learning, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 18–26. Laurillard, D. 1993, Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology, Routledge, London. Lawn, M. 1995, ‘Restructuring teaching in the USA and England: Moving towards the differentiated, flexible teacher’, Journal of Education Policy, vol. 10, pp. 347–60. Lundin, R. 1993, Overseas Experience in Non-Traditional Modes of Delivery in Higher Education Using State-of-the-Art Technologies: Best Practice, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra.
208
Maguire, M. and Ball, S. 1994, ‘Discourse in educational reform in the United Kingdom and the USA and the work of teachers’, British Journal of In-service Education, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 5–16. McNamara, D.S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N.B. and Kintsch, W. 1996. ‘Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text’, Cognition and Instruction, vol. 14, pp. 1–43. McNeil, D. 1990, Wiring the Ivory Tower: A Round Table on Technology, Academy for Educational Development, Inc., Washington DC [ED 320 555]. Moran, L. 1996, Flexible Learning—Convergence at Work, paper presented at Conference of Canadian Association of Distance Education, Universite de Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, May 1996. Morgan, W. and McWilliam, E. 1995, ‘Keeping an untidy house: A disjointed paper about academic space, work and bodies’, in R. Smith and P. Wexler (eds), Post Postmodernism: Politics, Identity and Education, The Falmer Press, London, pp. 112–28. Morrison, T.R. 1995, ‘Global transformation and the search for a new educational design’, International Journal of Lifelong Education, vol. 14, pp. 188–213. Murphy, J. 1993, ‘Restructuring schooling: The equity infrastructure’, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, vol. 4, pp. 111–30. Newson, J.A. 1994, ‘“Technopedagogy”: A critical evaluation of the effects on academic staff of computerized instructional technologies in higher education’, Higher Education Policy, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 37–40. Nixon, J. 1996, ‘Professional identity and the restructuring of higher education’, Studies in Higher Education, vol. 21, pp. 5–16. Olcott, D. Jr and Wright, S.J. 1995, ‘An institutional support framework for increasing faculty participation in postsecondary distance education,’ The American Journal of Distance Education, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 5–17. Pacey, L. 1993, ‘Strategic planning and open learning: Turkey tails and frogs’, in Bruce Scriven, Roy Lundin and Yoni Ryan (eds), Distance Education for the Twenty-First Century, International Council for Distance Education, Gjerdrums Norway, pp. 436–46. Prawat, R.S. 1991, ‘Conversations with self and settings: A framework for thinking about teacher empowerment’, American Educational Research Journal, vol. 28, pp. 737–57. Prawat, R.S. 1992, ‘Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective’, American Journal of Education, no. 100, pp. 354–95.
209
Prawat, R.S. 1996, ‘Learning community, commitment and school reform’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 28, pp. 91–110. Ramsden, P., Margetson, D., Martin, E. and Clarke, S. 1995, Recognising and Rewarding Good Teaching in Australian Higher Education, Australian Government Printing Service, Canberra. Rumble, G. 1989, ‘“Open learning”, “distance learning”, and the misuse of language’, Open Learning, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 28–36. Rutherford, L.H. and Grana, S.J. 1995, ‘Retrofitting academe: Adapting faculty attitudes and practices to technology’, T.H.E. Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 82–86. Seddon, T. 1994, ‘Reconstructing social democratic education in Australia: Versions of vocationalism’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol. 26, pp. 63–82. Senate Employment, Education and Training References (EETR) Committee 1995, Inquiry into the Development of Open Learning in Australia Parts 1 and 2, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Shade, L.R. 1995 ‘Wired in the ivory tower: Access and copyright issues surrounding the Internet and higher education in North America’, Education for Information, vol. 13, pp. 211–28. Shattock, M.L. 1995. ‘The university of the future’, Higher Education Management, vol. 7, pp. 157–63. Slowey, M. 1995, ‘Reflections on change—academics in leadership roles’, in Maria Slowey (ed.), Implementing Change From Within Colleges and Universities: 10 Personal Accounts, Kogan Page, London. Stofflett, R.T. 1994. ‘The accommodation of science pedagogical knowledge: The application of conceptual change constructs to teacher education’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, vol. 31, pp. 787–810. Taylor, J.C. and White, V.J. 1991, The Evaluation of the Cost Effectiveness of Multi-media Mixed-mode Teaching and Learning, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Taylor, P.G. 1995, ‘Comparing “open” and “traditional” education: University students’ experiences of alternative modes of delivery for the same subject’, Access Through Open Learning 1995, Occasional Papers in Open Learning, vol. 5, September, Southern Cross University, Lismore, pp. 61–68. Thach, E.C. and Murphy, K.L. 1995, ‘Competencies for distance education professionals’, ETR&D, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 57–72. Thorpe, M. 1995, ‘The expansion of Open and Distance Learning—a reflection on market forces’, Open Learning, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 21–30.
210
Tillema, H.H. 1995, ‘Changing the professional knowledge and beliefs of teachers: A training study’, Learning and Instruction, vol. 5, pp. 291–318. Willmot, M. and McLean, M. 1994, ‘Evaluating flexible learning: A case study’, JFHE, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 99–108. Wolcott, L.L. 1993, ‘Faculty planning for distance teaching’, The American Journal of Distance Education, vol. 70, pp. 26–36.
