Examining examples of marketing and articles about flexible learning - and contrasting them with some writing about arts education...
This blog is partially pre-empted by my previous blog that critiques the chaotic environment of an Elluminate (virtual classroom setting). This blog supports discussion and reflection about transformative thinking which results from chaos. Chaos in this sense means a non-linear learning, where the results of the learning activity are produced as moments in diverse situations (Holland & O’Connor, 2004, pp. 31-32).
“In a highly competitive international market… …is the first choice of thousands of students”. (Youtube, 2008, 32 secs). This précised comment from a marketing video for University of London, recently released on Youtube, highlights the kind of emphases that have been placed on the advertising profile of flexible learning courses, firstly with a presumption that students respond to the call for higher education primarily through the prompt of competitiveness. Interestingly this clip has been viewed worldwide by just over one thousand viewers (I have seen it 3 times for this assignment).
Paradoxically the clip reveals a key reason that people choose this type of distance learning. “Self pacing” is a term that describes the flexibility of completing study and assessment tasks alongside the ordinary juggle of family roles and responsibilities with work commitments. From this term, several critical notes about this particular presentation and its use as a persuasive tool for recognising the benefits of study access as an educational format spring to mind. Access worldwide is touted as a reason for studying this way, with no real mention about associated fees, course related costs. The very real issue of tutor contact and travel for same were discussed at the end of the video as critical. The costs of travel and sustainability issues for family and work challenged students are hardly mooted, nor the very real carbon footprint issue, engendered by such distance locations.
In describing the University of London as a centre of excellence, the advertising blurb relies on previous standards of qualification. These same criteria define meetings between tutors and students for revision, shared discussion about the subject and challenges to the knowledge input of tutors as critical learning events prior to examination. Once again time dense consideration is not compared with the ongoing schedules of work and family. Important to note is Annand’s (2007) comment that “despite hopes that social interaction incorporating more characteristics of face-to-face instruction will be facilitated in the ‘post-industrial’ adult distance education era, facilitating significant learner-to-learner interaction requires cohorts of students to move through a course of studies at the same pace. As a result, requirements of social interaction conflict with learner autonomy” Introduction section, para. 2).
Similarly, in this same article about re-organising universities for the information age, Annand (2007) (pre)scribes university education (as) “still generally conducted within pre-Industrial Age organizational structures” and thereby discloses a binary appraisal of different education accesses, somewhat muddled by learning theory, teaching theory and the very real financial problematic of maintaining educational quality in a fiscally disrupted era. The third line of this important article denotes cost effectiveness as a rationale for flexible delivery and becomes highlighted as an anxious and economically driven educational philosophy.
Further to this fear is a very real inhibition created by an increased dependency on technological advancements. Students’ access to learning online and/ or at a distance is to a large extent not yet matched by institutional resources, both human (technical support) and machine (computer and their associated communicational programmes). Alexenberg (2008) describes this same inhibition as “similar to the problem of learning a new language” (p. 16). He states that learners will default to linear or relational pattern of recognition as opposed to the integrative conceptually rich confirmation of learning that occurs in response to learning on site.
Keeping in mind the threads of my crituique, I argue that the same resistance to learning through technologically driven media may catalyse a new model for thinking, where the digital world becomes a conceptual agent, and students are provided with unique pathways to think. Annand (2007) concurs by naming this as a consequence (where) learning can be more autonomous and self-directed. However, Peters (2004) also points out that as this kind of learning is “technically mediated” it must be also be “carefully planned and structured”.
A secondary benefit from flexible learning education is described by this same author as “text-based rather than orally based” (Peters, 2004). In a previous blog I have briefly examined the anomaly which resides in the expectation that the whole world knows how to read. Without diverting this essay into a discussion about such an unreal statistic, this discussion points the way to a surfacing problem with flexible learning of the high level reliance on face to face or tutor to student communication. Both the Youtube clip and the article report the desire for students to be in close communication with their teacher albeit little or no desire to know them.
In the article, Anderson (2003) posits the following equivalency theorem: Deep and meaningful formal learning is supported as long as one of the three forms of interaction (student–teacher; student-student; student-content) is at a high level. The other two may be offered at minimal levels, or even eliminated, without degrading the educational experience. High levels of more than one of these three modes will likely provide a more satisfying educational experience, though these experiences may not be as cost or time effective as less interactive learning sequences. (p. 5). In conclusion, the economically driven decisions of distance and flexible learning has not yet made inroads into the teacher hours to student self directed learning ratio.
Reference list
Alexenberg, M, (2008). Educating artists for the future: Learning at the intersections of art, science, technology and culture. Bristol: UK, Chicago: US. Intellect
Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). Retrieved June1, 2009 from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/149/230
Annand, D. (2007). Re-organizing universities for the information age. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8(3). Retrieved June 1, 2009 from http://www.unescobkk.org/information/news-display/article/re-organizing-universities-for-the-information-age/
Distance Learning & Flexible Study - University of London External System. Retrieved June 1, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLyEiYC_0Xg
Holland, C. & O’Connor, P. (2004). Like writing off the paper: report on student learning in the arts. Ministry of Education: New Zealand.
Peters, O. (2004). Distance Education in Transition. New trends and challenges (4th Ed.). Oldenburg : Bibliotheks-und Informationssytems der Universitat Oldenburg.
æmˈbɪg
