Towards a Leading Edge Learning Environment at CSU:
Maximising responsiveness and flexibility through blended and
convergent learning approaches
Marian Tulloch, Philip Uys, Julie Arthur, Ellen Buckland,
Centre for Enhancing Learning and Teaching (CELT)
This paper has been developed by senior staff in CELT as response to the VC’s paper:
Great Expectations or Bleak House? A University for the Next Twenty Five Years:
Defining/Designing Our Preferred Future.
An earlier version of this paper was discussed in June 2005 at the joint meeting of the
Learning & Teaching Committee and the Information & Learning Systems Committee, at a
meeting with the professoriate in Dubbo and at the Vice- Chancellor’s Forum.
11th July 2005
Executive Summary
This paper from the CELT management team argues that in the increasingly global,
competitive and accountable Australian higher education sector, CSU should position itself as
a leading provider of flexible education. To meet the aspirations and circumstances of 21st
century students, the University needs to offer flexibility in: time, place, access, pace and
style of study within a blended approach to learning that builds on its strengths in both faceto-face and distance education provision and its developing online and multi-media
capability. Convergence is a means to making this flexible, blended approach pedagogically
and administratively practical and sustainable through a much closer alignment of the
learning experiences of on- and off-campus students. The paper focuses on conceptualising a
leading edge learning environment both physical and virtual that supports varied pedagogical
media forms and learning technologies. Innovation in teaching is grounded in a reflective
evidence-based culture in which scholarship of teaching is valued and underpins change. This
environment further responds, and impacts the wider environment by constantly self-renewal.
The first part of the paper establishes a framework for conceptualising a flexible blended
approach to the learning environment at CSU by examining:
 the drivers of change to the CSU learning and teaching environment,
 the characteristics of a leading edge learning environment,
 current frameworks for thinking about university learning and teaching and
 a conceptual framework for understanding student engagement within a leading edge
learning environment.
The second part of the paper explores pedagogical and organisational implications for CSU of
maximising responsiveness and flexibility through a more blended and convergent approach.
It is proposed to establish a specific Flexible Delivery mode (FD) as a focus for strategic
institutional change in learning and teaching and to support this change by encouraging the
development of learning communities of practice.
Based on strongly
valuing the
scholarship of
teaching and achieved
through learning
communities of
practice
Highly responsive to changes in
the external and
internal environments, while
impacting these environments
and constantly renewing itself
Shared need for flexibility
among student cohorts
To enable flexibility
Virtual
Blended learning
Physical
To ensure that the flexible
delivery mode is pedagogically
and administratively practical and
sustainable
Convergence of delivery
In making detailed suggestions for change, the paper endeavours not to be prescriptive but to
open up debate at a level that makes change possible.
2
PART A
Conceptual Framework for a Leading Edge Learning Environment
1 Drivers of changes to learning and teaching at CSU
The last twenty years have seen extraordinary change in the context of higher education in
Australia and beyond. At the same time staff /student ratios and student diversity have
increased, while the funding context for universities and for their students has become
increasingly challenging. Yet it is arguable that these changes have impacted quite slowly on
the practice of university teaching providing students with a ‘thinner’ but basically similar
experience (Gibbs, 2005). To survive and flourish in the increasingly global, competitive and
accountable context of Australian higher education, CSU needs to establish a national and
international reputation for the quality of its learning and teaching provision by a forwardthinking and strategic approach to enhancing learning and teaching.
Because the University combines strength in on-campus learning and teaching, particularly in
professional areas, with a large distance education provision supported by extensive
development, production and online systems, it is well placed to provide the ‘choice ,
flexibility and diversity’ that students increasingly demand (Hartley, 1995, p. 421). While
DE students have traditionally been viewed as ‘time poor’ with the competing demands of
study, full-time work and family responsibilities, most internal students are also now engaged
in significant amounts of part-time work (15 hours + a week on average), spend shorter time
on campus and have greater difficulty reconciling the specific time commitments of paid
work and study. Moreover, the majority, particularly of our younger students, belong to a
digital generation and expect that their university learning will take advantage of
developments in information and communication technologies. Increasingly the flexibility
and access provided by online technology and web-based resources is driving demand by
students for greater pedagogical use of online learning opportunities. Many academics also
seek flexibility provided by learning technologies to take advantage of the opportunities
provided by the online and broader virtual environment. More generally, the increasing
responsibility of students for the costs of their education creates a more critical consumer
orientation and a focus on the acquisition of workplace skills. At CSU the increasing diversity
of the student population with multiple entry pathways, a wider range of abilities, skills and
backgrounds and the large offshore cohort require a greater responsiveness to students’ needs.
Currently students at the greatest distance, those taught by offshore partners, have least
engagement with the University’s online environment.
Over the past 10 years CSU has responded to developments in information and
communications technologies by developing its own virtual environment for students and has
moved significant administrative functions online. The introduction of a Flexible Publishing
technology was a response to academics’ desire for greater flexibility.
It seems clear that in order for academic staff to ensure the currency and flexibility of
resource material best suited to their teaching purposes over the duration of a subject,
‘just in time’ publishing should be encouraged and supported (Reid, 2003, p.11).
The Beyond Print initiative has moved to align the production of multi-media materials with
the well-developed systems CSU has for the development and production of print learning
materials. More recently CSU’s online learning environment has been overtaken in scope and
coherence by commercial and open source products. Without a significant investment in its
online environment, the University risks losing its competitive edge in an area of traditional
strength, provision for off-campus study. Nevertheless the quality of student learning will
depend on the experiences that academics facilitate with learning technologies not simply on
their availability.
3
The availability of easy-to-use information and communication technologies and the online
provision of up-to-date resources have fostered innovation amongst academics and
significantly enhanced DE students’ learning in many subjects. However, increased student
expectations have placed additional pressures on academic workloads at a time of greater
demands for research output and professional activity. Excessive workloads, in terms of
numbers of students, subjects and modes, limit planning and innovation and potentially
undermine quality. Attempts to capture new markets by adding a DE mode to existing internal
courses makes strategic sense for CSU but, without a planned transition strategy, may further
increase some academic workloads.
In its 2005 Strategic Priorities, CSU identified ‘continuing development of leading edge
learning environment’ as part of e-environment development. This paper argues that to
achieve sustainable change in learning and teaching it is necessary to consider the whole
learning environment of the University not just the online learning environment.
2 Developing a Leading Edge Learning Environment
In 2003 Academic Senate approved the recommendations of the Online Learning Strategy
Working Party Report (Reid, 2003). The paper developed an approach to online learning
drawing among other sources on a paper by Palaskas and Muldoon (2003) which promoted a
blended approach to online learning along a continuum of face-to- face, print, offline digital
resources and online learning technologies.
Learning and teaching at CSU should be flexible in this sense, which by definition
encourages staff and students to make choices about working with print, audio-visual,
kinaesthetic, and artefact material within the traditional learning environment as well
as the e-environment. The choice of pedagogical tool must always be made according
to the needs and purposes of the teachers, students and learning tasks. Pedagogical
decisions should remain a matter of judgement for the academic. (Reid, 2003, p.5)
A major step forward was taken in 2005 with the setting of minimum internet access
requirements for commencing students. There are a significant number of initiatives taking
place within the framework of this strategy but they are currently dispersed, sometimes
fragmented and not always adequately supported with recognition or resources. This paper
considers what kind of a learning environment (Gibbs, 2005) is needed to underpin this
development and what strategies can promote systemic organisational change.
There are a confusing plethora of terms surrounding the impact of modern technology on
learning: online learning, e-learning, blended learning, the virtual learning environment.
While they share a focus on student learning rather than the teaching process, some terms
appear to linguistically privilege the role of technology over pedagogy. This paper will focus
on the learning environment in both its physical and virtual forms recognising there is
significant overlap and parallels between them. It advocates an approach that blends teaching
strategies, media forms and learning technologies to achieve in a practical way flexibility (in
pace, place, style, time and access) for students.
Convergence is a means of making this flexible, blended approach pedagogically and
administratively practical and sustainable through a much closer alignment of the learning
experiences of on- and off-campus students that avoids duplication of effort and
expenditure, using the most suitable delivery mechanisms and achieving long-term
sustainability for the institution. As technology facilitates the convergence of learning
opportunities, the old boundaries between the provision of interactive learning opportunities
for on-campus students and independent learning for off-campus students are being broken
down (Thorpe, 2002).
4
The paper focuses on building a flexible learning environment both physical and virtual that
supports varied pedagogical media forms and learning technologies and provides a basis for
change in learning and teaching practices. The flexible learning environment is to be achieved
through developing and supporting learning communities of practice so that the change is an
unstoppable, integrated and strategic bottom-up and top-down commitment to change (Gibbs;
2005; Marquard, 1996).
A leading edge learning environment at CSU will have the following characteristics:
Flexible
 providing learning opportunities that are flexible in terms of time, place, access and
pace of study and responsive to students’ financial, geographic and employment
circumstances;
 enabling students to study in the most effective manner including their own way of
navigating through learning materials;
 enabling academic innovation in learning and teaching practice using an array of
learning technologies;
Responsive and self-renewing
 to the diverse needs of individual students through a range of learning and student
support services;
 by provision of timely and constructive feedback on student performance in informal
tasks and formal assessment;
 to the requirements of potential students by being strategically responsive to social
change and related shifts in student demand and learning needs;
 the leading edge learning environment further responds to, and impacts, the wider
environments by constantly renewing itself as learning organisations do (Hitt, 1996;
Marquardt, 1996; Senge, 1990);
Blended
 media, learning and teaching approaches and learning technologies are
integrated/blended to the needs of student cohort(s) for effective learning;
Convergent
 supported by convergence of delivery through greater alignment of the learning
experiences of on- and off-campus students;
Promoting deep learning
 encouraging a deep approach to learning in which an integrated understanding of a
field of study is developed;
Promoting connectedness and support
 increasing the quality of intellectual engagement between academics, students and
their peers;
 developing and supporting learning communities of practice among academic,
support staff and students around critical learning and teaching issues that provides
for both discipline-based and cross-discipline engagement (Gibbs, 2005);
 supporting student learning by providing speedy feedback to questions;
 developing the teamwork skills necessary in the modern workplace;
 providing students with social support and reduce feelings of isolation;
Equitable
 enabling all students in a subject to have access to comparable learning opportunities
mediated where needed by appropriate technology;
5
Academically and professionally credible with stakeholders
 grounded in academics’ current research, scholarship and engagement with the
professions;
 recognised for quality of academic and professional education by auditing and
professional bodies, peers, and students;
 producing highly employable graduates with attributes and adaptability required for
the modern workplace;
Based in a dynamic evidence-based culture which
 supports systematic monitoring of student learning;
 provides for evaluation by students and peers and through reflective evidence-based
practice;
 is underpinned by research into university learning and teaching and promotes
ongoing scholarship in teaching to support effective innovation;
 promotes collaborative engagement in curriculum and subject development;
Sustainable
 in terms of the University’s human and financial resources;
 backed by support services with infrastructure of human, technological, information
management and economic sustainability;
 through complementarity rather than competition with other University goals (e.g.
research, professional engagement);
Smart educational use of cutting edge technology
 technology needs to be reliable and easy to use with more demanding technologies
providing students with adequate value to justify time spent in mastery;
 cutting edge technology should be constantly evaluated for educational use;
 appropriate learning technology needs to be contextualised within the CSU
pedagogical frame.
3 Perspectives on University Learning and Teaching
Although this paper does not seek to present a single theoretical position on the nature of
university education, its emphasis on grounding innovation in a scholarly approach to
teaching demands some consideration of how university learning and teaching is currently
being theorised. The now commonplace ordering of the terms ‘learning and teaching’ reflects
an important shift that privileges student learning outcomes over teaching practices. If
learning is about changing the way students ‘understand, experience or conceptualise the
world’ (Ramsden, 2003, p.6), then teaching involves supporting students to make this
change, a process that cannot be achieved simply by one-way transmission of knowledge.
University education is not the mere acquisition of isolated facts but an holistic
understanding of ways of thinking (key theories, structures and concepts of a discipline);
ways of knowing in that discipline (‘knowledge about how that knowledge comes to be
known’ Laurillard, 2002, p.218) and ways of doing (forms of practice and reflection on
action). It is this understanding that provides the link between teaching, research and
professional practice.
From this perspective, teachers focus on how students learn, or fail to learn, adapting their
teaching in the light of students’ understanding, and endeavouring to create ‘a context that
encourages students to engage with the subject matter’ (Ramsden, 2003, p110). For instance,
authentic learning tasks which assess student performance in realistic contexts not only
engage students with what they perceive as relevant learning but promote the application of
knowledge, the higher order thinking and the problem-solving skills that the workplace
6
demands (Kitts & Hancock, 1999). The structural complexity of students’ learning outcomes
is partly a function of curriculum and assessment design (Biggs, 1999). It follows that
assessment tasks and their broader learning context perform a critical role in whether a
student’s approach to learning is deep (transformative) rather than surface (reproductive)
(Ramsden, 2003).
The kind of teaching that supports a deeper change in students’ understanding of their field
has been described as ‘a sort of conversation’ (Ramsden, 2003, p.160) and Laurillard (2002)
places her analysis of media forms within what she terms a ‘conversational framework’. She
sees student ways of knowing the world develop through internal or interpersonal dialogue
supported by various forms of engagement with and feedback from the social, physical, and
virtual environment which promote an iterative process of conceptualisation and
reconceptualisation. If ‘knowing is a process, not a product’ (Bruner, 1966, p. 72), then the
role of the teacher in the physical or virtual learning environment should never be
conceptualised simply as that of an expert ‘content’ provider. Moreover, this approach to
knowledge development raises questions about the traditional view of the distance education
student as an independent learner. A learning process that relies on resource packages and
individual assessment tasks puts the onus for meaningful learning very heavily on the
student, even if feedback is timely and constructive. New communicative technologies open
up opportunities for richer conversations and collaborative learning, although the potential
for enhanced learning will also confront the barriers of students’ time commitments ( Thorpe,
2002). The impact on students’ learning outcomes of particular learning environments will
depend not just on the possibilities they create but the realities of student/environment
engagement.
4 Student Engagement within a Leading Edge Learning Environment
environment 1) conditions that influence the life and work of a person or community of people
2) all the conditions amongst which an organism lives that influence its behaviour and development 3) all the
features of an area and systems connecting these 4) location
The term ‘environment’ carries a set of meanings relating to conditions that influence
organisational and individual behaviour and development, the interconnectedness of systems
and a sense of place. A rich learning environment cannot ensure quality learning outcomes
but it can provide the enabling conditions for a variety of types of student learning.
A learning environment has a number of elements that can exist in physical or virtual form:
resources (e.g. text and images in printed or electronic form); spaces (e.g. lecture theatres,
fieldwork locations, libraries, online library databases and search tools, websites,
simulations); communication systems (e.g. face-to –face; online forums; CHAT); assessment
systems (e.g. pen & paper or online multiple-choice quizzes). These elements have certain
affordances for learning; they have properties that enable certain types of learning activities.
It is, however, the integration of elements into pedagogical structures (assessment tasks;
lectures; case studies; laboratory experiments) and into the broader pedagogical structures of
subjects and courses that design the conditions for learning. Moreover, it is the social aspect
that transforms spaces into places where communicative learning can occur (Munro et al,
1999).
Central to the argument for convergence is the recognition that different elements, including
physical and virtual spaces, can support the same type of learning engagement through
parallel pedagogical structures. A typology developed from Laurillard (2002) identifies five
structured forms of engagement, plus the student/ environment learning relationships that they
describe, the type of student activities they promote and the methods and technologies that
support them:
7





Narrative forms present knowledge, concepts, ideas, demonstrations in a linear
form; the students role is to attend and apprehend (e.g. lectures, books, video &
audiotapes)
Interactive forms allow the student control to search the environment in a goaldirected manner, the student role is to search, investigate, explore (library physical
and online resources, CD hypertext)
Adaptive forms The physical, human or virtual environment changes in response to
student action; students role is to experiment, hypothesise, practice (laboratory,
practical, simulation, statistical packages)
Communicative forms Staff and/or students brought together to discuss and develop
understanding of environment through the lens of a particular academic discipline;
Students discuss, debate, present/respond (face-to face tutorial, online forum,
CHAT); and
Productive forms Students (singly or in a group) create contributions to
environment; Students articulate, create, design, problem solve (essays,
performances, multi-media artefacts, group projects, reflective portfolios)
The implications of this typology can be explored by considering a central aspect of learning
and teaching at CSU, education for the professions. It is through engagement with narrative
forms that students encounter the theories, concepts and knowledge structures underpinning
professional practice and are exposed to the experiential narratives of professionals in their
field. Traditional university education has been dominated by the narrative form in lectures or
their print equivalent. The successful traditional lecture depends on the ability of the lecturer
to engage students at their current level of understanding, a goal more easily achieved with a
homogeneous cohort. At their best narrative forms can promote a grasp of conceptual
structures and key ideas, can model or demonstrate certain physical or intellectual activities,
and challenge views of the world; they can motivate or even inspire. Often they fall short of
these goals. When lecturers supplement narrative with communicative forms by interspersing
their presentation with activities that encourages student to provide feedback, to undertake
tasks or talk among themselves, they create a more interactive form of learning experience.
The lecture, however, is traditionally an ephemeral linear form with the pace set by the
lecturer. Transcripts, audio or video recordings, multi-media presentations can all provide
student-controllable access in varying degrees to the original presentation, allowing flexibility
of time, place and pace for student learning or revision. Debates around these practices which
potentially can support more flexible convergent approaches need to be grounded in analysis
of the types of learning they promote, including the impact of the presentational over the print
form of narrative and the balance of lectures with other types of learning activity.
As professionals, students will need to continuously enhance their initial knowledge base
through ongoing professional development. The attitudes and information literacies that
support ongoing interactive learning in the evolving professional environment include an
ability to search, explore and evaluate a range of increasingly web-based professional
resources. Productive forms of engagement in professional subjects often require students to
create professional artefacts (e.g. a diagnosis and treatment plan, court report, business plan,
curriculum document, radio interview or advertising campaign). The embedding of
professional tasks within a problem, project or case-based learning approach integrates all
forms of student environment engagement thereby promoting higher-order transformative
learning and the critical integrative skills required of graduates.
Adaptive interaction in professional courses can take the form of simulated environments,
closely controlled practical situations or a supervised practicum. However, the social
environment of the workplace often reinforces the gap between academic learning and the
‘real world’ of professional practice. A practicum that combines adaptive with productive and
communicative forms of learning may help to break down the theory/practice divide by
8
promoting reflective activity (eg through journals, action research etc) supported by
technology-assisted communicative learning that brings together fellow students, academic
staff, and if possible members of the professional community. The CSU Professional
Experience Network is currently fostering the development of a web-based environment to
support practicum learning activity via a range of resources and a broad community of
practice.
The typology of forms of student environment engagement provides a tool to examine the
range of learning opportunities provided in subjects and courses. In a balanced blended
learning environment all media forms are present and on- and off-campus students can benefit
from exposure to and choice between a diversity of supporting methods and technologies,
providing flexibility for varying styles of learning, available study times, cultural differences
and academic levels. Certain activities may be best suited to either the physical or virtual
environment. A theatrical event is produced in real time and place; locating journal articles on
a specific topic is much more effectively done electronically. For many activities, however,
there may be parallels in physical and virtual space sometimes with different affordances eg
face-to-face tutorials promote immediate engagement and feedback; less assertive and more
reflective students have reported that they like the time to post responses to an online forum
without the domination of the group by a vocal minority. Importantly in developing a
blended approach to learning supported by convergence of delivery, the same objectives can
be achieved by a range of methods and technologies whose appropriateness will depend both
on the nature of the task and student circumstances and characteristics. A challenge is to build
physical and virtual learning environments that can facilitate such diversity of learning forms
and provide favourable conditions for learning.
Such a blended approach can enable convergence between on- and off-campus cohorts within
traditional teaching approaches.
For instance CSU lecturers are using software to develop multi-media presentations
which are provided to off-campus students on CD. When resources include the image
and voice of their lecturer, students report a greater sense of connectedness. The
resource can be presented within a lecture to on-campus students with additional
commentary and the opportunity for questions. Alternatively on-campus students can
watch this material in their own time and at their own pace while questions and
related learning activities can be undertaken in tutorials. Parallel learning activities
are provided to off-campus students. Material can be updated for off-campus students
using the flexible publishing technology or through forum postings. Questions raised
by one group can be taken up with the other cohort in tutorials or forums.
A more radical approach to convergence is exemplified in the following subject:
Both on-campus and off –campus students enrol in this technology-related subject.
Students have access to printed journal articles, web links, films on video or DVD.
The first assessment task is a highly structured cooperative assignment using shared
online forums in which students are assigned particular roles and carefully
structured tasks. The assessment of online activities is followed by an essay requiring
links between insights developed in the online environment and students’ developing
understanding of the academic literature. The academic spends a great deal of time
in the initial design of the subject. For the second offering of the subject, details of
the assignments are modified in the light of feedback and experience. On-campus
students work together, gathering as a group to watch and discuss films and pose
questions on the forum. The academic monitors student progress, engages on the
forum where assistance and feedback is needed, communicates individually with
students as appropriate. A mature-aged student in a responsible professional position
initially describes the subject as “like an ice-pick to the head’. He thought he knew
9
the area and has been expecting an easy ride. He enrols the following session for a
similarly structured subject with the same staff member recognising the amount he
has learned and relishing the challenge.
In this example the subject design breaks down almost completely the distinction between onand off-campus students. It does not involve any traditional on-campus teacher-directed
activities and promotes a highly cooperative learning approach. There are, however, many
alternative pedagogical models that can blend a range of media forms and technologies; the
appropriate mix will depend on the academic staff member, the objectives of the subject and
the characteristics of the student cohorts. A focus on facilitating student learning in a
resource-rich environment changes but does not diminish the importance of teaching.
Teaching, however, is defined broadly to include curriculum development, design of learning
resources and assessment, and the facilitation of a variety of student learning experiences. A
range of forms of student environment interaction are promoted, including crucially the
engagement of teacher and students in communicative learning.
PART B Convergence towards a more flexible, blended approach: implications for CSU
5 Introduction of a flexible delivery (FD) mode: A proposed transitional approach
There are many staff within the University who are experimenting with alternative
approaches to facilitating student learning. The impetus is sometimes pedagogical and
sometimes a practical response to the management of diverse cohorts and unwieldy
workloads. The lack of clear institutional direction sends mixed messages to these staff about
the legitimacy of their practices and can lead to uncertain student expectations. It fosters ad
hoc solutions to administrative problems, sometimes inadequate systems of quality assurance
and a lack of adequate systemic evaluation or communication around scattered and disjointed
initiatives. It is in this context that the following proposal for a flexible delivery mode of
offering is made.
Currently CSU students are enrolled in Internal, Tutorial or Distance Education mode further
subdivided into various campuses or sites. These categories perform a range of administrative
functions: resource provision, online communication, assignment submission, service
provision and timetabling and also enable CSU to break down evidence on student feedback
by cohort.
It is recommended that, to support change management processes towards greater
flexibility and convergence of modes, CSU introduce a flexible delivery (FD) mode.
FD mode provides flexibility to students and academics alike by using blended and
convergent learning approaches.
The following characteristics of a subject in this mode are proposed:
 The subject involves more than one cohort or location i.e. is available

to both on-campus and off-campus students;

in an integrated form on more than one campus;

to practicum students (or other groups involved in a mix of on-campus and
off–campus activities)

in order to support a transition from internal-only offering to the
introduction of an off-campus offering
To assist academic management of the student group, the on- and off-campus cohorts
need to be separately identifiable;
10
 All students are provided access to a blended range of learning resources and online
facilities (including EASTS) and a single subject forum (sub-forums be can created as
appropriate);
 A subject is supported by a single subject outline that documents the learning and
teaching strategies to meet the needs of different students;
 All students have access to comparable learning and teaching experiences. Parallel
opportunities may be offered in a physical or virtual environment (including IVT).
Alternatively all students may have an on-campus requirement possibly a combined
teaching block/residential;
 Subject has explicit strategies that support communicative forms of learning for all
students (for on-campus students this would normally include some face-to face
activities; for off-campus students learning activities could be based around the
forum and/or some form of synchronous communication or take the form of a
residential school);
 Assessment requirements are equivalent for all students although mode of delivery
may differ (eg face-to-face or forum postings);
 Development, production and distribution of subject materials for all students are
supported by CELT, including the Learning Media Laboratories, and the LMC with
relevant input from Library and Student Services; and
 Subject approval processes for FD mode address convergence in learning and
teaching strategies and in assessment.
It is proposed that the initial impetus and criteria for FD subjects be a convergence of
provision across modes. Eventually FD mode may be extended to all subjects catering
for off-campus students that provide a blended approach to learning, engaging in the
virtual learning environment for communication and resource provision. It is
anticipated that Tutorial mode, as a strategy for managing small on-campus cohorts,
will over time be subsumed by FD mode and in the longer term DE mode may be
replaced by FD mode as all subjects offer a blend of technologies using both offline
and online communication and resources.
The flexible learning environment is to be achieved through developing (Brack et al, 2005;
Bryant, 2005) and supporting learning communities of practice as a key transitionary strategy.
Learning communities of practice links to academic collegiality and the need at universities to
explore issues in an integrated and strategic bottom-up and top-down fashion (Gibbs; 2005;
Marquard, 1996; Rogers, 1983). These learning communities of practice can be structured
among, and inclusive of, academics, support staff and students around critical learning and
teaching issues that provide for both discipline-based and cross-discipline engagement
(Newell-Jones, Osborne, 2005).
It is recommended that, to create a flexible learning environment, learning
communities of practice be developed and supported.
6 Changes to the learning environment to support FD mode
Physical Environment
Any major shifts in how students are taught (eg reduction in the number of lectures, more
independent group work) will change the way buildings are designed and used and may
11
require changing timetabling procedures and reconfiguration of learning spaces (eg provision
of flexible furniture). The Learning Commons concept provides a vision of integrated colocated service provision for students (IT, Library and Study Skills) accompanied by places
where students can study in groups and use online technology to support these group
activities. As part of evaluating the impact of the introduction of FD subjects, changes in
students’ learning activities and their consequent needs should be systematically assessed.
This assessment could assist a review of the long-term provision of on-campus computing
facilities to support formal teaching and individual and small group student activity.
The CSU Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)
If CSU embraces the Learning Commons concept in a physical form, the Virtual Learning
Commons needs to be developed in parallel. It could even precede physical changes. The
same principles apply in the virtual environment: a more integrated approach to student
support; an extension of the communicative functions of the Online Learning Environment
(OLE) to enable various forms of synchronous and asynchronous student activity; and virtual
places and technologies to facilitate group work on shared projects. The scoping of some of
these initiatives is being undertaken under the auspices of the VLE Working Party.
In the CSU VLE learning materials are made available in digital format either online and/or
off line (e.g. CDs and DVDs, video and audiotapes). The Online Learning Environment
provides for several functions: access to software and learning resources, online assessment
and feedback, online evaluation, and facilitation of communication and cooperative learning.
For the Online Learning Environment to have an identity, it needs to establish an integrated
interface with applications sharing a similar functionality and look and feel, a process which
is currently being undertaken. It also must also support pedagogical integration by facilitating
ease of academic access to and management of a range of applications, activities and
services. The VLE will integrate a variety of learning technologies which may continually be
enhanced by tracking key technological developments both nationally and internationally.
Developments at present that will be carefully monitored include wireless computing and
mobile learning, open source, reusability of learning objects, voice recognition, online
synchronous use such as Webcams and voice-over-IP, international metadata standards and
bandwidth improvements.
Resourcing the Online Learning Environment
The environment requires major and urgent investment of resources for technical
development at three levels:
 the applications in the Online Learning Environment itself need to be extended and
upgraded to support a wider range of online pedagogical practices (identification of
priorities are currently being undertaken by the VLE Working Party);
 an easy-to-use Assembler technology is required to enable files to be combined to
form learning resources, thus linking the OLE to the resources located in a Digital
Object Repository (also called a Learning Content Management System) and
 the OLE needs to be underpinned by a Digital Object Repository that supports the
development, storage, and searching of all digital resources, including those provided
in print form (a pilot project for a Digital Object Repository is currently being
finalised by DIT, CELT, LMC and the Library).
A fully convergent approach requires that all learning resources and technologies be made
available to all students. The introduction of an FD mode aims at a phased introduction of
changes with resource implications (eg provision of access to applications such as EASTS,
now only available to DE students; cost to schools of free provision of learning resources to
on-campus students). At the same time there may be a range of savings (eg staffing and
travel costs, staff time, reduced printing with a shift to greater digital resource provision etc.)
12
7 Managing Student Expectations and Roles in Flexible Delivery Subjects
Convergence means changes to the learning environment of both internal and distance
education students. For the changes to be successful and valued, students need to understand
their purpose, the expectations thus placed on them and the expectations they can have of
academic staff.
On-campus students will gain access to a greater range of resources and variety of learning
experiences that may reduce the predominance of, or change the form of, lectures in many
subjects. Students will spend less time as, often passive, recipients of transmitted knowledge
and more on active task engagement designed to engage higher-order abilities. They need to
understand how staff will support them in these differently structured subjects. Internal
students often see DE provision as inferior and not meeting their learning needs. The
introduction of an FD mode is seen as a way of managing on-campus student expectations
around a well-developed communication strategy for innovative subjects that in most cases
will still involve a face-to-face component.
For off-campus students FD mode will ensure the provision of a blend of high quality
resources including learning forms that promote connectedness, communicative learning and
a wider range of student environment interactions. Students will gain access to the best of
internal teaching methods which may include recorded lectures. Although some of these
activities are currently best supported by CD, students will also need internet access that goes
beyond the current one hour administrative minimum requirement set by Academic Senate.
Any shift to more student-centred learning needs to be accompanied by clearly articulated
academic expectations. Assessment tasks need to intellectually challenge students; flexibility
must not support mediocrity. To an even greater extent than in the traditional face-to-face
teaching, assessment in a blended approach is a key driver of student learning. The quality of
academic engagement remains central to successful outcomes for students; more studentcentred learning does not mean abrogation of academic responsibility for engaging, guiding
and challenging students.
Planning for blended learning requires recognition of important individual differences in
students (eg motivation, maturity, experience, subject level, multiple literacies) which may
affect the type of support and scaffolding needed. Particular thought needs to be given to first
year students to support the development of skills and approaches to study that will sustain
more independent learning. Currently differences in provision for internal and DE students is
based on geographical location and not directly on student needs (although maturity and life
experience are often seen as a key differences between many internal and DE students).
Because a blended, convergent model demands greater student independence and self
direction with reduced timetabled structures, the University will need to systematically
support the development of the generic skills and multiple literacies necessary for students to
operate effectively in a flexible delivery mode and demonstrate the attributes expected of a
CSU graduate. Efficient time management will become increasingly important to students’
success and many students will need support in developing strategies in this area.
8 Changing Academic Roles
The nature of academic work
The systematic promotion of convergent strategies has the potential to significantly alter the
nature of academic work. For blended learning/flexible delivery to be sustainable there must
be reductions in workload through creation of common learning strategies and reusable
learning resources instead of the often separate subject development in internal and DE
modes. The role of the academic teacher shifts to a greater emphasis or integrated curriculum
planning (at course and subject level) and on the design of resources, learning experiences
and assessment tasks with a reduction in time spent on face-to-face presentation (Laurillard,
13
2002). This may reduce staff/ student contact hours particularly in internal mode (and maybe
the number of residential schools) but may also lead to differences in the way the University
employs casual academic staff to facilitate student engagement in well-structured tasks.
Inflexibility in workload systems or formulas based on face-to face contact hours have
proved a systemic barrier to innovation in many universities (Gibbs, 2005). Workload
allocation during the transitional phase will need to be considered so that staff are adequately
supported in the initial design phase (what Gibbs terms ‘invisible’ time) while recognising
that a subsequent reduction will occur in face-to-face contact hours (particularly for internal
students). An increased focus on rigorous planning is likely to involve more academic team
work, and greater integration of the roles played in resource development by academics,
educational designers, learning media laboratory coordinators, LMC production staff and
staff from Library and Student Services.
Academic roles: Reducing teaching-related administration
The identification of administrative constraints and inefficiencies are important to successful
change, both because they free academics for teaching rather than teaching-related
administration and because attention to these issues sends an important message about
practical support for academics during a change process.
Issues need to be identified by staff but may include:
 efficient systems for managing cohorts, within and between sessions
 efficient grade submission process
 efficient timetabling of rooms that does not assume a uniform weekly usage
throughout ‘internal’ teaching weeks
 reusability of learning materials.
Academic roles: Evidence-based practice
Central to a move to a more flexible blended approach must be the embedding of a culture of
evidence-based practice as critical to the role of the academic teacher as reflective
professional. Such evaluation involves not only student and peer evaluation of subject
provision but also critical reflection by the academic on student outcomes, the quality and
depth of student learning demonstrated in assessable work. CELT Evaluation Services
supports subject and course evaluation and can work with staff on the evaluation of new
online and multi-media learning resources to facilitate a better understanding of how students
are using the resources, learning technologies and opportunities provided.
9 Professional Development and Enablement
A leading edge learning environment is underpinned by a clearly articulated analysis of the
learning and teaching opportunities it affords within well-designed professional development
structures and processes. These potentially include productive partnerships with staff from
CELT, Library and Student Services in developing learning resources and improving
students’ generic skills etc. It must equally inform the induction programs for learning and
teaching (i.e. FULT, TTC and Graduate Certificate in University Learning and Teaching).
Specific staff development activities will be required to cater for emerging pedagogical and
skill development needs for teaching using more a flexible and blended approach (Brack et al,
2005; Newell-Jones, Osborne, 2005).
The current Learning Designs and Frameworks project is an attempt to build Learning
Designs around pedagogical imperatives based on scholarly research and supported by
rigorous evaluation. It will provide frameworks for subject development on blended learning
principles including exemplars, guidelines, and templates for CD/DVD or online resources
supported by professional development strategies for facilitating convergent practices.
14
Conclusions
This paper recommends that CSU maximises flexibility and responsiveness by instituting a
Flexible Delivery mode (FD) to provide a catalyst and focus for change in learning and
teaching practices. The convergence of modes will provide additional resources and
flexibility to on-campus students and enhanced communicative and blended learning to offcampus students. By shifting the balance of academic activity between design and
presentation, it has the potential to significantly improve the quality of subject design. The
University’s expectations of staff and students in subjects that depart from traditional forms of
delivery will be clarified. It is vital that staff and students have positive experiences in the
introductory stages of this change. This can only occur if there is significant and integrated
planning around the introduction of an FD mode that engages with the full set of issues
outlined in this paper. Although the introduction of an FD mode is intended to provide a focus
for change, it is essential that continuing innovation in learning and teaching is encouraged
across all modes of delivery. It is also important to recognise that flexibility cannot be
instituted solely at the subject level and it is anticipated that changes need to be considered in
the context of courses and their curriculum.
To achieve systematic cultural change in approaches to learning and teaching the University
will need to promote significant discussion and ownership of change within schools and
faculties. Productive change must be underpinned by open communication not imposed
solutions, in a culture that values commitment to quality and innovation in learning and
teaching supported by reflective practice and scholarship. Academics who are already
involved in innovative blended teaching strategies are particularly important advocates and
changes agents. They can also benefit from the development of communities of practice,
where reflection on innovative practice, problems and solutions can be shared with
colleagues. A commitment to the scholarship of teaching demands that innovation in
university learning and teaching has a systematic research base to which CSU can be a
significant contributor in the areas of flexible blended learning and professional practice.
The role of evaluation at the institutional, as well as the subject or course level is central to
any effective change management process. Any major change in how CSU considers and
promotes its learning environment requires a systematic process of evaluating the
implications and impact of changes, a process that is facilitated by the introduction of an
identifiable FD category. However, effective evaluation cannot be externally imposed but
must become embedded in a reflective culture at all levels of the organisation. Learning
communities of practice need to be developed and supported to engage around critical
learning and teaching issues in supporting this reflective culture.
The questions that follow provide a starting point for such engagement. For changes in
practice to occur within schools and faculties will over time require support, and in some
instances changes in roles and modes of operation of various areas of the University,
including CELT, DIT and the Learning Materials Centre, Library Services, Students
Services, Student Administration and Facilities Management. A gradual but clearly
identifiable shift in approaches to learning and teaching provides an opportunity for each area
to make the necessary changes to enable and support more effective student learning.
The introduction of an FD mode provides an underpinning for CSU to market itself as a
provider of flexible learning opportunities within a ‘Leading Edge Learning Environment’. It
goes beyond the marketing strategy of some of our competitors that promote their flexibility
in terms of choice of mode: on-campus, off-campus or fully online. The concept of a Leading
Edge Learning Environment developed in this paper is much broader than online delivery
and suggests a whole-of-University approach within which the CSU Online Learning
Environment is embedded. To achieve this goal will require pedagogical, technological and
organisational changes that create different resource priorities.
15
References
Brack, C, Benson, R, Samarawickrema, G. Technology advances: Transforming university
teaching through professional development. Paper presented at HERDSA conference,
Sydney, July 2005.
Bruner, J. S. (1966). Towards a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bryant, H. Facilitating communities of practice through cross-university communication fora.
Paper presented at HERDSA conference, Sydney, July 2005.
CSU Learning and Teaching Plan (2002).
Dillenbourg, P. (2000). Virtual learning environments. Workshop presented at the EUN
Conference ‘Learning in the New Millennium: Building New Education Strategies for
Schools’.
Gibbs, G. Being strategic about improving teaching and learning. Paper presented at
HERDSA conference, Sydney, July 2005.
Goulter, I. (2005). Great Expectations or Bleak House? A University for the Next Twenty
Five Years. Defining/Designing Our Preferred Future
Hartley, D. (1995). The 'McDonaldization' of higher education: Food for thought. Oxford
Review of Education, 21:409-23.
Hitt, W.D. (1996). The learning organization: some reflections on organizational renewal.
Employee Counselling Today, MCB University Press. Volume 8 Number 7 pp 16 – 25.
ISSN 0955-8217
Marquard, M. J. (1996) Building the learning organization – a systems approach to quantum
improvement and global success. New York, McGraw-Hill.
Kitts, S. A. & Hancock , J. T. (1999). Putting theory into practice: The creation of REALs in
the context of today’s universities. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 7 (2), 414.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching. A conversational framework for the
effective use of learning technologies. (2nd ed) RoutledgeFalmer: London.
Munro, A., Höök, K. & Benyon, D. (1999). Footprints in the snow. In A Munro, K Höök & D
Benyon (Eds), Social Navigation of Information Space, pp 15-34. Springer: London.
Newell-Jones, K, Osborne, D. Academic skills development - changing attitudes through a
community of practice. Paper presented at HERDSA conference, Sydney, July 2005.
Nunan, T. (2000). Exploring the concept of flexibility. In V. Jakupec & G. Garrick (Eds.),
Flexible learning, human resource and organisational development: Putting theory to
work (pp. 47–66). London: Routledge.
Palaskas, T. & Muldoon, N. (2003). Learning & Teaching at CSU: Moving towards
increased flexibility, A discussion paper, Centre for Enhancing Learning and Teaching.
Ramsden, P. (2003). Learning to teach in higher education. RoutledgeFalmer: London.
Reid, J. (2003). Online Strategy Working Party Report to Senate.
16
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd edition. New York: Free Press.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
London: Century Business.
Thorpe, M. (2002). From independent learning to collaborative learning: New communities of
practice in open, distance and distributed learning. In M Lea & K Nicoll (Eds.)
Distributed learning: Social and cultural approaches to practice. London: Routledge.
17
Key Questions
1. Are the goals of maximising flexibility and responsiveness through a blended
approach to learning and greater convergence of subject offerings for on- and offcampus students, appropriate for the University over the next 25 years?
2. Would introduction of a flexible delivery mode facilitate convergence and innovation
at CSU? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed FD mode?
Are the listed criteria appropriate?
3. Why do students choose to study on campus? What level of flexibility are they
looking for? Are there alternative ways of meeting or changing expectations of oncampus students?
4. How is a balance achieved between students’ need for flexibility, their limited study
time and the goal of promoting deep approaches to learning supported by
communication and collaboration?
5. Could fewer high quality lectures supported by printed and multi-media resources
provide more or equally effective learning experiences? Can some subjects be
effectively taught without lectures, supported by appropriate resources and carefullystructured assessment tasks?
6. Are there less staff-intensive small group activities that can meet the objectives of
some current tutorials? Do the greater interactive capacities of the online environment
complemented by off-line digital resources reduce the need for residential schools in
some areas? Can block modes of teaching provide for convergence of face-to-face
teaching of on- and off-campus students?
7. Are our learning and teaching spaces appropriate in size, layout and equipment for
the type of teaching strategies we might use in a blended learning environment?
8. What impact would greater flexibility of offerings have on timetabling and on
patterns of students’ on-campus accommodation requirements?
9. Can convergence and the accompanying shift in balance from presentation to design,
promote more reusable resources and support better student outcomes and more
sustainable workloads?
10. What implications does a blended convergent model have for CSU’s offshore
offerings? If we are expected to achieve an equivalent learning experience for offshore students should these students have access to our virtual learning environment
and digital learning resources?
11. What expectations of academics and students are appropriate in a flexibly-delivered
subject?
12. How are learning communities of practice best developed and supported at CSU?
13. What implications do new modes of learning have for assessment design and policy?
14. How do we want to present CSU in the market? Is flexibility (of time, place, access,
pace and style) a key concept?
18