Flexible Learning

DISTANCE EDUCATION - FLEXIBLE LEARNING
Dr. Renu Bayaskar

Asstt. Professor,
Post Graduate Deptt. of Education
RTM Nagpur University, Nagpur
The Concept of Flexible Learning :

Distance education has moved, in some jurisdictions, from the political and
educational margins into a position where it is viewed by government and institutions
as a mainstream educational process. Distance learning methods and information
technologies are converging with classroom strategies to create what will be a
substantially, different and exciting educational environment. In so doing, they present
intriguing challenges to deeply embedded norms and values, to organizational systems
and structures and to university cultures. In Australia, this convergence is termed
'Flexible learning' while rhetoric still outstrips reality, some universities are
revolutionizing their approaches to how, where, when and what they teach. For them,
'flexible learning' is mainstream educational strategy, not marginal experiment.
A flexible learning environment is one that is assumed to produce quality
outcomes and to be efficient and effective. It is student centred and recognizes
diversity and the importance of equity in access and learning outcomes. As Nunan
(1996) argues, 'put bluntly, flexible learning is code for deep learning. Flexible
learning relied partly on a rich array of resource based learning techniques and
information technologies to respond flexible to the diverse back-ground that students
bring to their study, and to free up the place, time, pace, media and modes of study.
Flexible learning is equally concerned with enabling students to learn how to continue
learning after this study period is finished that is, with the skills and aptitudes of
lifelong learning. The role of the teacher moves from an emphasis on provision of
information and direction of teaching, to facilitator of learning and advisor on
information sources with all that implies for changes in the power relationship
between teacher and learner.
The university of South Australia - in taking a whole institution approach to
flexible learning. In particular, it examines some of the key policy and structural
issued that the university has faced in 1990. Thus for, one could argues that above
values and approaches epitomize any high quality distance education operation. The
key difference for uniSA is that the university intends that the philosophy and
practices of flexible learning will encompass and integrate all its educational
experiences, there by doing organizational and other distinctions between distance and
face-to-face teaching in favour of a spectrum of modes and media appropriate to the
circumstances. The university is building on its history as a dual mode institution with
a well-established distance-education infrastructure to take the this whole of
institution approach to changing teaching and learning, flexible, student centred
learning is not being treated simply as the use of distance education techniques and
information technologies to improve classroom teaching.
This whole institution approach involves a lockstep development of policy and
practice in multiple dimensions of flexible learning. Our distance education institutes
also apply this policy and practice.
As emphasis on equity and openness in access arrangements.
Interaction between and among teacher and learners are as adoptable as
possible in terms of place, time and medium.
Study patterns are diverse and adopted to the requirements of lifelong learners.
Curriculum content is flexible and inclusive.
Teaching and learner support systems accommodate diverse student needs and
learning styles.
Learning resources support the teaching/learning process at every stage.
Appropriate information technologies underpin inquiry and discourse.
Organizational structures and policy process are designed to maximize
flexibility and creativity.
Collaboration with others to improve the quality, range and relevance of
teaching/learning.
The change process of course, has not been smooth or uncontested, and there is
a long way to go before the university can confidently assert that flexible learning
values and practices are ubiquitous. The university has put in place an elaborated
planning and review cycle and quality assurance processes for teaching and learning
that provide a clear corporate view of the nature and speed of change. It has also
created the Flexible Learning Centre (FLC) to provide the specialist services to
support these changes and also take a leading change agent role.
Implications for Flexible Learning :
A whole institution approach to flexible learning is not easily achieved. The
gaps between rhetoric and reality are real as staff come to grips with what teaching
and learning mean in a constantly changing social, political and economic
environment. Flexible learning challenges fundamental values and systems of both
individuals and institutions. The difficulties are compounded by a large gap beween
goals and recourses.
The first challenge is to replace a view that education is either face-to-face on
campus or at a distance, with a blended approach. This is neither easy, nor
uncontested, since distance education is still disparaged by many as a second rate form
of education. There is a need for production facilities and technology, plus a range of
expert supports and process that not only change the time and place of course design
and delivery, but also the number of participants in the processes of teaching and
learning.
Secondly, flexible learning requires a shift ferom a concept of education as
teacher dominated to a learner - centred, constructivist approach based on the
assumption that knowledge can not be taught but only learned or constructed.
Thirdly, the resources required for flexible learning can be a major barrior for
those institutions without pre-existing distance education infrastructures, specialized
professional and technical expertise and appropriate resource allocation mechanisms.
The solution is to collaborate with a distance teaching university or to out source the
necessary expertise and facilities. The FLC for example provides staff development,
materials production and delivery services on contract to several other educational
institutions.
The temptation to reinstate time worn teaching/ learning strategies, renew
emphasis on homogeneity in the student population and concentrate on local rather
than global concerns is barely resistible in the face of the difficulties of innovation and
change. Yet unless we grapple with all the dimensions of flexible learning outlined
here, our institutions will die. They will become irrelevant anachronistic and
regurgitatative, rather than the creative, vibrant and intellectually challenging centres
of the information society that universities should be.
References :
1)
Charles Durran A. (1972) Counselling Learning a Whole - Person Model for

Education, New York and London, Grane and Stration.
2)
Goel Aruna and Goel S. L. (2000) Distance Education in the 21 st century, New
Delhi, Deep and Deep Publication Pvt. Ltd.
3)
Patanjali Prem Chand (2005) Development of Distance Education in India,

New Delhi, Shree Publishers and Distributors.
4)
Sharma Shaloo (2002) Modern Methods of Lifelong Learning and Distance

Education, New Delhi, Sarup and Sons.

Flexible Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flexible Learning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flexible Learning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DISTANCE EDUCATION - FLEXIBLE LEARNING

Dr. Renu Bayaskar

The Concept of Flexible Learning :

Charles Durran A. (1972) Counselling Learning a Whole - Person Model for

Patanjali Prem Chand (2005) Development of Distance Education in India,

Sharma Shaloo (2002) Modern Methods of Lifelong Learning and Distance

You might also like