Making choices about the correct mix of academic support ... - CiteSeerX

Making choices about the correct mix of academic support for postgraduate distance learners: a balancing act? Elizabeth Devonshire Yooroang Garang: The School of Indigenous Health Studies Ruth Crocker School of Behavioural and Community Health Sciences University of Sydney The rapidly accelerating demand for ‘flexibility’ in higher education poses some unique challenges for conventional universities, and it is becoming increasingly “clear that flexible learning cannot take place in an inflexible university” (University of Sydney 1998). One major challenge revolves around making effective choices about the management of non-traditional student support needs within current organisational arrangements and funding constraints. This paper presents the initial findings of an action research project investigating the ‘costs and benefits’ associated with augmenting academic support mechanisms for students participating in the distance mode of two pre-existing postgraduate courses. The importance of student support is well documented, and acknowledged as a critical component of distance education, providing mechanisms for creating an off-campus learning community, maintaining quality learning outcomes and facilitating improved retention rates. Determining the correct ‘mix’ of support, however, is influenced by characteristics of the student population and the range of learning materials provided, and is shaped by the culture and systems of the organisation. Decisions that are reached about an appropriate mix of support involve finding a balance between what is ideal and what is achievable in a specific educational context.

Looking at distance education and flexible learning Most accounts of the history of distance education in Australia link its emergence with the introduction of a correspondence course at the University of Queensland in 1911. Since this time, alternative delivery modes called ‘off-campus study’ and later ‘distance education’ have continued to evolve and expand (Campion 1996:150). As universities prepare to move into the 21st century, the previously defined boundaries between on- and off-campus education have become an indistinct border across which the migration to ‘flexible teaching and learning’ continues to gain momentum at a rapid rate (see for instance Evans & Nation 1996; Taylor, Lopez & Quadrelli 1996). Some of the factors recognised as influencing this transition are: •

responses to decreased university funding;

•

deregulation - such as the withdrawal of previous Commonwealth government restrictions on the delivery of distance education through accredited Distance Education Centres (DECs) only;

• •

the move towards mass participation in higher education; global competition in the higher education ‘marketplace’;

• •

technological advances; and increased consumer awareness of educational options.

In common with other universities, we have been experiencing a gradual but inevitable transition in recent years from a traditional face-to-face mode of delivery to more flexible forms of teaching and learning. At our Faculty, which was incorporated into a conventional university following the introduction of the Unified National System, the first distance education courses were offered in 1994, and since this time dual-mode operations have continued to expand. This year a total of seven fully articulated HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

1

Devonshire & Crocker

postgraduate coursework programs, an undergraduate degree, and a number of single units of study within other degree programs, were offered. In Australia, students undertaking study externally comprised ten percent of all enrolments in higher education by 1989, and twelve and a half percent by 1995 (Cunningham, Tapsall, Ryan, Stedman, Bagdon & Flew 1998). During the same period of time, the demand for postgraduate education increased substantially, representing one of the fastest growing areas in higher education (James & Beattie 1996). Overall, this growth has been particularly prominent in coursework masters degrees, and in our field, Health Sciences, the “total student numbers have increased more than fourfold” (James & Beattie 1996:10). Although not a specific point for discussion here, it must be acknowledged that the impact of the introduction of fee-paying in some coursework graduate programs is yet to be fully realised in terms of enrolments across all fields of study. There are multiple and varied explanations for the overall growth in and demand for postgraduate coursework programs noted above. For example, many professionals are seeking study that provides opportunities to update their knowledge base in order to enhance career prospects (James & Beattie 1996). The ‘time flexible’ (Evans & Nation 1996:4) and ‘location flexible’ characteristics of distance education hold considerable appeal for busy professionals, who are keen to access postgraduate education that accommodates their study needs within work, family and social commitments. Despite this appeal, potential for student isolation exists, which reinforces the importance of support systems in creating an off-campus learning community, facilitating improved retention rates and maintaining quality learning outcomes (Lundin 1998). A number of authors note that distance education options range from flexible (open) to inflexible (closed), depending on the degree of student-centredness and choice incorporated into the course design (Lewis 1990; Nation, Paine & Richardson 1990; Rumble 1995). Personal experience from teaching and learning perspectives reinforces this observation, and it is argued that many distance education providers need to critically evaluate the actual level of flexibility and support they offer to students. Further consideration will be given to ‘degrees of flexibility’ in ‘mapping the terminology’, below. Researching flexible learning: positioning ourselves Many new academics enter the health sciences teaching arena on the basis of relevant clinical/professional experience, but often without the benefits of either a specific qualification in education or tried and true research skills. Even the idea of trying to incorporate research into the already daunting teaching and administrative workload of clinically focused courses can seem overwhelming. The opportunity to participate in an innovative scheme, the Research into Teaching and Student Learning in the Health Sciences (RTL) Program, has enabled us to take an initial step onto the research ‘bandwagon’. As new academics, this program has opened up an avenue for us to question our practice in a collaborative manner (see Daniel DiGregorio & Devonshire 1999). We believe that in a move towards embracing flexible teaching and learning strategies, it is important to problematise current practice in order to facilitate a successful transition to this new mode of educational delivery. What we had considered to be a relatively small first step was, in retrospect, a

HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

2

Making choices about the correct mix of academic support

significant breakthrough in terms of demystifying the research process, with the result that investigating our practice is now becoming a reality. Involvement in the RTL is an indication of our commitment to enhancing the student learning experience through research into teaching. It is already evident that part of our ‘balancing act’ will be the demands associated with managing high levels of teaching responsibilities alongside our activities as beginning researchers. Such difficulties are highlighted by Moses (1997), who notes that research is often an additional activity for academics, one which “demands much time, energy and commitment and leads to loss of personal and recreational time” (p. 189). This observation, validated by our recent experiences, raises important questions about support for the development of novice researchers in the current university climate, as these people are often committed teachers who are involved in designing and implementing flexible learning innovations. Problematising practice using action research Our research interests revolve around an exploration of the ‘costs and benefits’ associated with augmenting academic support mechanisms for students in the distance mode of two pre-existing postgraduate courses. These coursework programs offer study in ‘new’ fields or disciplines, with many of the students not having completed specific undergraduate study in the area. This characteristic of our learners raises questions about the incorporation of strategies to facilitate social interaction, which is often acknowledged as an integral aspect of learning and a means of facilitating professional socialisation (James & Beattie 1996:14). Consideration of ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ from both student and academic perspectives forms part of our investigation. Action research methodology was chosen on the basis that it facilitates research into problems of practice (Kember & Kelly 1993), and is viewed as “part of the general ideal of professionalism, an extension of professional work, not an addition to it” (Winter 1998:14; emphasis in original). The link between action research and facilitating change is well recognised. Zuber-Skerritt (1996), for instance, illustrates this clearly, stating that “emancipatory action research is organisational change ‘best practice’ and that it fosters organisational learning and the development of the ‘learning organisation’.” (p. 83). Using action research in this study enables us to critically examine the effects of augmenting academic support for distance learners, and to contribute to the development of a theoretical basis for the provision of flexible teaching and learning in the health sciences context. The initial questions for inquiry are: 1) what support strategies do students perceive as beneficial and valuable? 2) what are the issues associated with the introduction and provision of these support mechanisms? 3) what support systems will help to facilitate the development and maintenance of an off-campus learning community? Mapping the terminology: an important first step In speaking of conventional universities, we are referring to those offering the experience of teaching and learning through attendance on-campus, usually on a fulltime face-to-face basis, in an institution established to provide education via this delivery mode. Non-traditional students in this context are those who choose not to, or HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

3

Devonshire & Crocker

can not, participate in this way and for whom support services are evolving within a system now aiming to increase access through more flexible modes of delivery. Generally, the degree of flexibility has been extended to include off-campus or mixed mode options (including block attendance and/or summer school) in some or all undergraduate and postgraduate courses. Alternative participation in our situation is facilitated by staff who teach in, and/or administer, programs for ‘traditional’ and ‘nontraditional’ students concurrently, a circumstance characteristic of dual-mode institutions. For the purpose of this paper, and in our research context, we define ‘academic support’ as services “that support the educational process” from both learning and teaching perspectives (Wagner 1995:19). We consider academic support to be an integral part of teaching, in fact “it is teaching; it is central to all we do as professionals” (Reid 1995:269). This support forms the element of distance education which correlates most closely with traditional education, as it provides “the interface between the institution and its students” (Sewart 1993:11), with the aim of enhancing academic outcomes achieved through participation in distance learning experiences. The range of support services and mechanisms offered may include residential schools and regional study centres, teleconferencing, computer mediated instruction, radio tutorials and audiocassette correspondence. Determining the appropriate mix of support services in a specific context, however, is dependent on the target market, learning materials, delivery system, image of the organisation and the culture in which it operates (Sewart 1993). Distance education and open learning Distance education has been viewed and written about from many and varied perspectives. Superficially, the evolution of distance education from correspondence courses to flexible teaching and learning can be traced through the changing, and sometimes interchangeable, use of terminology (Devonshire & Baker 1998). It is widely accepted, however, that distance education involves the “programs of study which provide both content and support services to students who rarely, if ever, attend for face-to-face teaching or for on-campus access to educational facilities” (Cunningham et al 1997). A myriad of terms and descriptions exists to describe different dimensions of flexibility. For instance, the terms flexible delivery, open learning and distance education, each of which contains similarities and differences, can be located at various points on a “set of continua” (Taylor, Lopez & Quadrelli 1996:6). Distance education, for example, ranges from flexible (open) to inflexible (closed) options in terms of access and participation, with levels of student/teacher and student/student interaction extending from high to low. It is essential for universities to determine their positioning on this ‘set of continua’ in order to measure the degree of flexibility they are willing and able to offer to students. The term ‘open learning’ refers to an educational philosophy which “places student learning, needs and choice at the centre of educational decision making” (Taylor et al 1996:6). The primary distinction, therefore, between the terms open learning and distance education is that the former refers to an approach to the educational process, whereas the latter refers to the means or strategies engaged for the delivery of education. Johnson (1998) states that open learning implies:

HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

4

Making choices about the correct mix of academic support ...so many things: open access to learning for all people; overcoming the barriers of distance and isolation, opening up the possibilities of education for people who had none before: openness with regard to the times of study, freedom from class timetables; openness in what one chose to study, openness of the program; and openness in the process of assessment and certification (p 11).

Moving towards ‘flexible learning’ Despite the potential evident in the educational philosophy described so richly above, it is important to note that in many contexts use of the term ‘open learning’ has recently been superseded by ‘flexible learning’. Perhaps this shift is related to the demands for “greater flexibility and cost-effectiveness in ‘traditional education’” (Cunningham et al 1997, p. 22), or a current focus on the advances in, and apparent promises of, technology with respect to facilitating “increased ‘openness’ in both on- and off-campus study” (Taylor et al 1996:6). Whatever the reasons, the term flexible learning has been widely adopted in the academic community, and its meaning must be examined in light of the multiple discourses now emerging in the contemporary university environment. Tracing the terminology associated with distance education provides insight into its evolution, but, as previously recognised, this may only be on a superficial level. Is flexible learning another potentially ‘superficial’ description, or a fundamental change in philosophy and practice? Kirkpatrick (1997) addresses questions of this nature in her analysis of the introduction of flexible learning within one university, arguing that “it is a multi-faceted and evolving…phenomenon” (p. 164), from which a number of problems and contradictory messages arise. Many academics believed that flexible learning meant doing more with less, reduced the level of student/teacher interaction, decreased collegiality, increased competition between academics, and in some cases even restricted access to learning. As a consequence, questions have arisen about “what it means to be an academic - the implications of flexible learning innovations for academics’ teaching practices, roles and the ways in which they do their jobs” (Kirkpatrick 1997:172). Given the impetus for change underpinning the functioning of the university sector today, it is reasonable to assume that some aspects of these concerns are not restricted to the environment that was the subject of Kirkpatrick’s analysis, and may be generalised to other academic contexts. Implementing support for distance students It has been acknowledged that the establishment of student support systems presents challenges unique to an organisation and its student and staff populations. Robinson (1995) highlights the difficulties associated with conceptualising models of student support, based in part on its situated nature and the inconsistency of applied definitions. The students participating in the initial stages of this project are health professionals, predominantly female, most of whom are studying formally for the first time in many years. Similarly to us and our colleagues, students are balancing the demands of competing roles, and although their decision to engage in postgraduate study is based on the anticipated benefits of such a commitment, a significant personal cost may also be incurred. We chose to implement teleconferencing as a strategy to enhance academic support for distance learners during the first action research cycle, and are currently reflecting on the apparent ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ to date. This choice was based on our relative inexperience with the use of communications technology to facilitate learning, and our HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

5

Devonshire & Crocker

awareness of the need to implement a strategy that maximised student access. Students’ views will be sought and analysed to inform the next stage of the process. Choosing the mix of support: Some initial findings Drawing on a recent reflection with a ‘critical friend’, the discussion below provides a brief overview of our initial insights into some of the challenges encountered as we begin to incorporate new technologies for enhancing the student learning experience. Our reflection on the introduction of teleconferencing as an academic support mechanism focused on the implications of managing and using technology to facilitate learning in what we referred to as a ‘changed teaching environment’. A number of questions requiring further consideration have emerged in relation to choosing the correct mix of support, such as: •

how to balance roles and responsibilities?

•

what is ideal and what is achievable within time and other resource constraints?

•

to what extent will this changed teaching environment shift educational values and student expectations?

To facilitate development of a conceptual framework for influencing decision-making about student support at an institutional level, we have chosen to utilise the four interrelated dimensions suggested by Taylor et al as a guide for academics moving towards flexible practices (1996). These are: •

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.

The four dimensions outlined above have already provided a useful framework for consideration of the costs and benefits associated with our research to date. For example, we have benefited from our collaboration with colleagues and as a research team, through opportunities to engage in and reflect on conversations about our teaching and research roles. There have been significant costs, however, in terms of time commitments and consequences in relation to other facets of our respective roles and associated responsibilities. Navigating distances: balancing roles In considering the impact of various dimensions of flexibility, it is clear from our perspective that a simple adoption of changing terminology can not adequately reflect the philosophical and operational shifts universities must make to ensure a dynamic yet sustainable response to the complexities inherent in the contemporary environment. Effective transition to this new educational context obviously presents a number of challenges, including how to ensure flexibility in teaching and learning strategies, curriculum, organisational arrangements and administration (Lundin 1998). Linked to these challenges are concerns about the quality of learning outcomes in distance education. Despite these concerns, when comparing distance education with traditional HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

6

Making choices about the correct mix of academic support

face-to-face methods, learning outcomes can be equal, if not better, providing that appropriate student support is incorporated into well designed courses (ibid.). Although a vast array of academic support mechanisms is available to encourage interaction and promote learning in the distance mode, when the ‘costs’ associated with choosing and implementing them are examined more closely, a number of other issues arise. It has been stated that there are “multiple distances to be navigated” in the delivery of education through both face-to-face and distance modes (Granger & Benke 1995:22). These distances relate to assumptions about students’ prior knowledge and skills, experiences, language, culture, context and learning styles, motivations and goals (ibid.). We would assert that these distances extend beyond the dimensions of the student/teacher relationship to encompass the organisational context and the knowledge, skills and attitudes of academic and administrative staff as they embrace more flexible forms of educational delivery. Taylor et al (1996), with reference to the work of Thach and Murphy (1995), provide a helpful overview of the range of competencies required by staff in order to contribute effectively to more flexible practices (p. 110). It is becoming increasingly difficult to articulate the value of teaching in the contemporary university climate. Moses (1997) expresses this difficulty through an analysis of the challenges and complexities associated with the teaching dimension of the academic role. The necessity for improvements in teaching and learning strategies to facilitate increased flexibility and diversity across the university sector is acknowledged (p. 182). Commentary is provided on the extent to which attempts to implement teaching innovations are becoming increasingly ‘managed’ by the university, due to current funding constraints and the internationalisation of higher education (ibid.). Candy (1995) also discusses the multitude of factors impacting on the role of academics, ranging from increased diversity in the student body, and closer links with industry, to the increased managerialism noted by Moses (1997). McInnis (1998) speaks of the additional tasks now incorporated into the academic role, primarily as a result of the demands associated with “institutional competition, accountability and quality assurance processes” (p. 1). He states that the proportion of time devoted to the core tasks of teaching and research has not really altered over time, noting, however, that the overall working hours per week continue to increase as academics incorporate non-core work activities into their roles (McInnis 1998). Kenway and Langmead (1998) argue that universities of the present have not only been restructured, but have in fact been ‘recultured’ to the extent that an identity transformation has occurred. In response to the complexity and demands of their work environment, Moses (1997) states that, not surprisingly, “academic staff feel beleaguered by the range of functions they are asked to perform simultaneously and the increasing prescriptions on how they carry out their work” (p. 181). As we navigate multiple distances as beginning researchers, we are conscious of concerns such as those raised above by Moses (1997) in relation to the competing demands on academics, including the current predominance of research “as a defining factor for university excellence” (p. 177). We would concur with her argument that this emphasis “leads to a distortion in values and to a confusion over the legitimate functions of universities” (ibid.). Through an investigation into practice, with respect to the provision of academic support for distance learners within a complex and multiply constrained environment, we are attempting to achieve a balance which will encompass and reflect the value we HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

7

Devonshire & Crocker

place on teaching and learning. Observations such as the following, from an experienced colleague, are a source of direction and encouragement: The positive thing is that you’ve actually linked research and teaching…students benefit by getting extra attention, your research is continuing and you are combining things that you would have done anyway. That’s a strategy for managing the pressing times were in…by adding a little bit of extra time, getting a lot more value – you’re piloting that concept.

Viewed from a ‘beginning researcher’ perspective, we believe that our collaboration holds the potential for benefits at institutional as well as personal levels, and look forward to opportunities to contribute to future developments at our Faculty through an ongoing commitment to research into practice. References Campion, M. (1996). ‘Opening learning, closing minds’. In Evans, T. and Nation, D. (eds.). Opening Education: Policies and practices from open and distance education. London: Routledge. Candy, P. (1995). ‘Priorities for academic staff development in the nineties: A personal view’. Australian Universities’ Review. 38: (1). pp.16 - 20. Cunningham, S., Tapsall, S., Ryan, Y., Stedman, L., Bagdon, K. and Flew, T. (1998). New Media and Borderless Education: A review of the convergence between Global Media Networks and Higher Education provision. Evaluations and Investigations Program, Higher Education Division: Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Daniel DiGregorio, K. and Devonshire, E. (1999). ‘Safety in numbers: Implementing an innovative program to transform the academic culture for beginning researchers.’ Paper presented at HERDSA Annual International Conference, Cornerstones: What do we value in Higher Education? Melbourne, Australia. July 12 -15. Devonshire, E. and Baker, R. (1998). Synergy. Issue 9: November. pp. 13-14.

‘Stepping onto the research bandwagon’.

Evans, T. and Nation, D. (1996). Opening Education: Global lines, local connections. In Evans, T. and Nation, D. (eds.). Opening Education: Policies and practices from open and distance education. London: Routledge. Granger, D. and Benke, M. (1995). ‘Supporting students at a distance.’ Learning. September/October. pp. 22 - 23.

Adult

James, R. and Beattie K. (1995). Expanding Options: Delivery technologies and postgraduate coursework. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. Johnson, R. (1998). ‘Educational and social imperatives in global open learning’. In: Barker, J. M. (ed). International Conference: Learning Together - Collaboration in Open Learning. Perth, Western Australia. April 20 -22. Kember, D. and Kelly, M. (1993). Improving Teaching through Action Research. Campbelltown, NSW: HERDSA. Kenway, J. and Langmead, D. (1998). ‘Governmentality, the “now” university and the future of knowledge work’. Australian Universities’ Review. 41: (2). pp. 28 -32. Kirkpatrick, D. (1997). ‘Becoming Flexible: Contested territory’. Studies in Continuing Education. 19, (2): pp 160 -173.

HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

8

Making choices about the correct mix of academic support

Lewis, R. (1990). ‘Open learning and the misuse of language: A response to Greville Rumble’s article’. Open Learning. 5. (1): pp 3- 8. Lundin, R. (1998). Teleconference: ‘Are You Flexible Enough to Live in the Virtual Education World?’ 17th September. Sydney: ACT Teleconferencing Pty Ltd. McInnis, C. (1998). Change and Continuity in Academic Work. Higher Education Series: Report No. 30. Higher Education Division, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Moses, I. (1997). ‘Redefining Academic Roles: In support of teaching’. In Sharpham, J. and Harman, G. (eds.). Australia’s Future Universities. University of New England Press. pp 176 - 196. Nation, D., Paine, N. and Richardson, M. (Editorial). (1990). ‘Open learning and the misuse of language: Some comments on the Rumble/Lewis debate’. Open Learning. 5. (1): pp 40 - 45. Reid, J. (1995). ‘Managing learning support’. In: Lockwood, F. (ed.). Open and distance learning today. London: Routledge. Robinson, B. (1995). ‘Research and pragmatism in learner support’. In: Lockwood, F. (ed.). Open and Distance Learning Today. London: Routledge. Rumble, G. (1995). ‘Open learning, distance learning and the misuse of language’. Open Learning. 4. (2): pp 28 - 36. Sewart, , D. (1993). Student support systems in distance education. Open Learning. November: 3 - 12 Taylor, P., Lopez, L. and Quadrelli, C. (1996). Flexibility, Technology and Academics’ Practices: Tantalising Tales and Muddy Maps. Canberra: AGPS. University of Sydney, 1998. Report of the Academic Board Working Party on Flexible Learning. Sydney: Author. Wagner, E. D. (1995). September/October: 18 - 27.

Distance education success factors. Adult Learning.

Winter, R. (1998). Some principles and procedures for the conduct of action research. In: Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed.) New Directions for Action Research. London: The Falmer Press. Zuber-Skerritt, O. (1998) Emancipatory Action Research for Organisational Change and Management Development. In: Zuber-Skerritt, O. (ed.). New Directions for Action Research. London: The Falmer Press.

HERDSA Annual International Conference, Melbourne, 12-15 July 1999

9