LOL –Limitations of Online Learning – are we selling the open and
distance education message short?
Barrie Todhunter
Barrie Todhunter <Barrie.Todhunter@usq.edu.au>
Faculty of Business and Law, University of Southern Queensland, Australia
The thesis of this paper is that the open and distance education sector is based on a
framework of terminology that is typologically inconsistent and which lacks clarity,
and open and distance education teaching and learning models are examined to explore
these concerns. The findings of this analysis are then used to assist in the articulation of
a strategic direction for a regional dual-mode Australian university and to identify
appropriate branding for its off-campus model of education. Concerns are raised as to
the appropriateness of an “online” message to prospective students given possible
adverse perceptions of a learning environment that may not align with the needs and
expectations of distance learners.
Keywords: distance education, blended learning, online education, open learning,
flexible learning.
1
Introduction
The thesis of this paper is that the open and distance education sector embraces a
framework of terminology that is typologically inconsistent with actual offerings and lacking
clarity for stakeholders. Initially the paper examines the historical context of off-campus
education and how terminology related to distance education has evolved. The nomenclature
and typology of tertiary learning environments are explored as well as the diversity of
definitions of learning environments and study modes offered by higher education
institutions. The development of learning environments is explored, including their
convergence over recent years due to technology and the economics of off-campus education.
The author then examines how those issues are impacting on the deliberations at a regional
university (the University) in terms of its future strategic direction, particularly with regard to
a proposal to use “online” as an all-embracing term for all off-campus teaching and learning.
The University context
The author coordinates a postgraduate master’s program for domestic and
international students at a regional Australian university which has offered on-campus and
off-campus (dual mode) education for domestic and international students for more than 30
years, a product of the Dawkins era which fostered the development of distance education
centres (Dawkins, 1988). Since that time, off-campus enrolments have grown to
approximately 20,000 students which represent about 80 per cent of total enrolments.
The University has moved through various generations of distance education
consistent with those described by Taylor (2001): correspondence, multimedia, telelearning
and flexible learning. The University collaborated with a private technology company at the
turn of the century to make many of its academic programs available “online” (postgraduate
in particular). Remnants of all of the generational models remain, including printed study
2
materials (which are progressively being phased out), selected readings of journal articles
(which were provided to reduce the dependency of students on physical resources from the
library), and CD-ROMs (which were introduced to minimise the problems and costs
associated with access to the internet for students in remote locations).
The University has won international awards for open and distance education as a
“dual mode” university (http://www.usq.edu.au/lrds/aboutlrds/award) and the official modes
of study in which students can enrol comprise on-campus (ONC), external (EXT) and online
(WEB). Students can and do move across all three modes freely within programs and from
semester to semester, thereby blurring the distinction between on-campus and off-campus
modes of study.
The on-campus mode (ONC) of study has different variations across faculties each
with different patterns of contact times, assessment and learning resources. Off-campus
education comprises traditional correspondence (EXT) and web-based models (WEB) with
different levels of fees, support and resources for each mode of enrolment. In its current
marketing materials the University now promotes only the alternatives of “on-campus” and
“online” modes of study (http://www.usq.edu.au/), and it equates “online” and “distance
education”: “Online - We have 40 years (sic) experience in delivering internationally
awarded distance education” (http://www.usq.edu.au/). However, in other instances it
suggests that online and distance education is different: “USQ is Queensland’s number one
University for online & distance education” (http://www.usq.edu.au/futurestudents/transcripts/what-is-online-study).
These examples may seem minor, but underlying these conflicts is a more
fundamental concern as to how the language of off-campus teaching and learning has evolved
over the last 140 years (Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 429), and how it is inconsistently used.
3
External and web-based modes at the University have now almost converged into a
single model that is offered in multiple formats across faculties and academic programs. Oncampus and off-campus students share access to the same online resources and discussion
forums as well as assessment activities, making distinctions between modes of study
increasingly difficult to define and to explain to students, and academic and professional staff
struggle with both administrative and pedagogical aspects of the enrolment modes.
The problem
The University has released a new strategic plan (Thomas, 2012) to determine its
future direction within a competitive higher education market place. As part of the new
strategic plan, the University is moving away from its use of “distance education” in its
marketing and promotional activities in favour of “online” education” as the generic term for
all off-campus education.
A re-branding of the institution as an “online university” has been proposed as the
preferred image for off-campus teaching and learning. However, concerns have been raised
about an adverse interpretation by staff and students of a central theme of “online” education”
which may suggest to prospective students that the only alternative to studying on-campus is
to undertake “online” study. This may represent a deterrent to students who are cautious
about undertaking studies in a mode where they do not see “a match between their preferred
learning style and their study mode” (Hagel & Shaw, 2006, p. 288), and which may not be
well supported putting them at risk of reduced learning outcomes and even possibly failure.
Educational institutions can expect a more favourable attitude towards a mode of study where
students ”perceive a compatibility with their situation and goals, where they value the
learning experiences they are offered, and where they recognise the availability of a sensitive,
proficient and accessible student support ”process”” (C. K. Morgan & Tam, 1999, p. 106).
4
Although Beattie and James (1997) proposed a framework for evaluating three
common study modes in Australian postgraduate studies which distinguished between
“several modes on potential flexibility in time and place, potential interactivity, and the
teacher’s role” (Hagel & Shaw, 2006, p. 285), Hagel and Shaw (2006, p. 285) indicated that
”few studies have investigated the dimensions on which students evaluate study modes” and
reported that “students distinguished between study modes on two broad categories of
benefits: engagement and functionality” (p. 297). While the University has over thirty years
of experience in providing quality distance education (http://www.usq.edu.au/aboutusq/about-us/history), research by Howland and Moore (2002, p. 191) revealed early
perceptions of students who had “serious doubts about the quality of learning that could be
carried out over the Internet in comparison to face-to-face environments”. The growth of eLearning has blurred the boundaries of educational modes (Forsyth, Pizzica, Laxton, &
Mahony, 2010), and a review of the literature suggests that the distance education sector
lacks clarity in its language and lacks precision in its typology of teaching and learning
environments (Schlosser & Simonson, 2009).
Typology of learning environments and enrolment modes
The three modes of enrolment at the University have been indicated above as “oncampus”, “external” and “web”. Australian higher education institutions and academics use a
wide range of terms to describe ways in which students may engage with their studies,
including on-campus, face-to-face, off-campus, open education, distance education, external
study, online education, e-Learning, flexible learning, blended learning and hybrid. The
literature suggests that there is limited consensus on the definitions and understanding of
these terms (Lund & Volet, 1998; Schlosser & Simonson, 2009), and that this has created a
degree of confusion for academics, administrators and students, especially within the
University.
5
For each learning environment listed above, there are distinct attributes that help to
locate and define them in a typological structure. For example, an on-campus mode relates to
“courses that deliver material face-to-face and students interact with instructors face-to-face”
(Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 142). As the use of technology rapidly increases in education
(Schlosser & Simonson, 2009), the boundaries of what learning environment fits within a
mode of enrolment become less clear, and aspects of the respective teaching and learning
environments are examined in detail below. Consequently the focus of this paper is on the
examination of the nomenclature and typology of teaching and learning environments and
enrolment modes in higher education institutions and the consequential impact that this may
have on the expectations and obligations of staff and students.
The importance of typologies is that they “go beyond the problem of order and help to
show the importance of particular factors” and are considered ”a system of groupings…the
members of which are identified by postulating specified attributes that are mutually
exclusive and collectively exhaustive” (Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013). Within the
typology, each type may represent “one kind of attribute or several and need include only
those features that are significant for the problem at hand” (Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.,
2013). Overall, the typology “elicits a particular order depending on the purposes of the
investigator and on the phenomena so arranged” (Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013).
A brief analysis is provided in the following sections of each of the learning
environments listed below, and indicative definitions are provided to illustrate the lack of
clarity and consistency:

On-campus/face-to-face

Off-campus/distance education/learning at a distance

E-learning/computer-based learning

Online/networked learning/distributed learning/web-based learning

Blended learning/block intensive/hybrid
6

Flexible learning

Open learning
On-campus/face-to-face teaching and learning
Traditional face-to-face courses are “courses that deliver material face-to-face” and
where “students interact with instructors face-to-face” (Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 142).
Surprisingly, few research studies have investigated “the functional benefits students
experience when studying face-to-face in the conventional classroom” (Hagel & Shaw, 2006,
p. 286).
Students who select an “on-campus” mode of study at universities within Australia
may or may not attend scheduled classes, as rarely is attendance or participation compulsory,
nor even recorded. Even if attendance is mandatory, students may not participate nor engage
with the activities in the course, and achievement of learning outcomes may be limited. Hagel
and Shaw (2006, p. 286) indicate that lectures increase “the efficiency with which students
could cover the required learning material”, and that this is “of particular importance to
international students”
Students may participate in unsupervised study groups, read independently, do
learning tasks that are not set by the lecturer, write assignments, research in the library,
research online or do online quizzes. They may be on-campus but they may not be in class.
As these activities can take place outside the classroom, on-campus students may actually
engage in limited face-to-face learning activities on campus. What then really differentiates
an on-campus learning environment from an off-campus one? Is it a question of the degree of
attendance?
7
Off-campus/distance education/learning at a distance
An “antonym” is defined as “a word opposite in meaning to another”
(http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/antonym?q=antonym). The antonym to “oncampus” is “off-campus”, a category of learning environment which embraces many forms of
distance learning. Distance education has a long history going back around 180 years
(Schlosser & Simonson, 2009) when the opportunity to study “Composition through the
medium of the Post” was advertised in 1833 in Sweden. Schlosser and Simonson (2009)
provide a detailed history of how learning at a distance developed rapidly across Europe and
the United States. Distance education using correspondence models began in Australia early
in the twentieth century to address the needs of rural families but did not reach a significant
scale at tertiary level until much later in the century (Erdos, 1986). Although distance
education in universities is generally perceived as a recent phenomenon in Australia, it was
being offered in 1911 by the University of Queensland (Roberts, 2000). The Royal
Melbourne Institute of Technology commenced distance education for returning servicemen
after the First World War, and distance education was increasingly offered by other
universities during the period up to the 1970s. The University of New England initiated the
model that is now commonplace throughout Australia, whereby lecturers taught both oncampus and distance students and both cohorts received the same qualification (Erdos, 1986).
While distance education itself is well-established, the definitions of the mode are
numerous and include:

the quasi-permanent separation of teacher and learner; the influence of an
educational organisation in the planning, development and distribution of learning
materials and student support services; the use of technical media; the provision of
two-way communication to allow students to participate in and instigate dialogue;
8
and the quasi-permanent absence of other students so that learning takes place as
individuals and not in groups (Keegan, 1996, p. 50);

institution-based, formal education where the learning group is separated, and
where interactive telecommunications systems are used to connect learners,
resources, and instructors (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek 2006, cited
in Schlosser & Simonson, 2009, p. 1);

instruction in which students are separated from…instructors during the entire
course of study (Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 142);

the various forms of study at all levels which are not under the continuous,
immediate supervision of tutors present with their students in lecture rooms or on
the same premises but which, nevertheless, benefit from the planning, guidance,
and teaching of a supporting organization (Holmberg, cited in Schlosser &
Simonson, 2009, p. 4).
From another perspective, the evolution of distance education is commonly related to
the generations of technology that are utilised, ranging from postal correspondence to mass
media of television, to radio and film production, to interactive technologies, and to flexible
learning and intelligent databases (T. Anderson & Dron, 2010, p. 81). The University finds
that the costs of providing physical resources such as print and even digital media on disk are
significant and make it difficult to compete with educational institutions “which are new to
distance education and do not yet bear the full costs of sophisticated infrastructure to deliver
quality teaching at a distance” (Higgins & Harreveld, 2011; Lockee, Perkins, Potter, Burton,
& Kreb, 2011). Those costs have encouraged the University to discontinue providing physical
learning resources to off-campus students, thereby removing any perceived difference
between students enrolling externally or via web mode.
9
The use of the terms off-campus or distance education implies that the experience of a
student who is learning off-campus will be different to those of a student who is studying oncampus. On-campus students can quickly form groups in class, in the corridor, or at offcampus locations to discuss topics related to their learning. Informal social interaction is
important for creating spaces that encompass “social relationships, group cohesion, trust and
belonging” (Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002, p. 10). McLoughlin and Luca (2003, p.
880) note that “successful learning occurs when it is contextualised, social, conversational,
collaborative and reflective”. Body language, facial expressions and tone of voice can have
significant impact on the learning dynamics in classrooms and groups and on learning
experiences and outcomes. Impromptu activities can take place quickly and easily, which can
change the direction of a learning session. However, it is recognised at least from the public
rhetoric of universities, that this social experience can be replicated through the provision of
social networks.
Given this, from an administrative and logistical perspective, how different do the oncampus and off-campus modes need to be in order for students to be formally enrolled in
different modes of study? Administrative issues including those relating to Commonwealth
reporting requirements and Centrelink eligibility for student allowances appear to influence
much of the decision-making on this issue, but given the blurring of modes, what exactly is
the tipping point at which a student is deemed to be engaged in distance education?
The implications can be quite significant as there are still jurisdictions where
qualifications from a distance education university are not recognised. AMIDEAST (2012)
engages in international education, training and development activities in the Middle East and
North Africa and advises that “despite the huge numbers of accredited distance programs and
research that has been done showing that they are often equal or superior in quality to
campus-based programs, ministries and other entities in some countries still do not recognize
10
even accredited degrees earned through distance methods”. Through Austrade, the Australian
Government warns that “distance education is a difficult area for international education
providers as the Ministry of Education does not recognise qualifications granted to Chinese
students by any foreign institution through distance education” (Austrade, 2012).
E-learning/computer-based learning
While initial observations of computer-based learning suggested that “e-learning is a
confused and confusing field, fragmented into multiple disciplines and emphases” (Lund &
Volet, (1998, p. 90), a general definition is provided by Pollard and Hillage who suggest elearning represents “the delivery and administration of learning opportunities and support via
computer, networked and web-based technology to help individual performance and
development” (Pollard & Hillage, 2001, n.p.). Although many writers refer to elearning,
online learning, and web-based learning interchangeably (Smart & Cappel, 2006, p. 202), elearning and computer-based learning can be seen as broader than online learning as they do
not always require web-based connectivity. The learning activities can take place on standalone digital devices and that is an important differentiator, and they are more focused on the
actual learning activities taking place in a digital environment such as games, simulation and
training.
Online/networked learning/distributed learning/web-based learning
From a position as a recognised leader in a niche market, the University is now in a
situation where many other competing universities offer online programs with some devoted
solely to online degree programs (Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 141). At the same time,
traditional universities have also expanded their offerings to include online education; the
MIT Open Courseware being frequently cited (www.ocw.mit.edu).
11
Common usage suggests that online learning and e-learning are similar concepts but
the literature suggests otherwise. Online and web-based courses have been defined as
“courses that deliver material entirely online and students interact with instructors entirely
online” (Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 142). Natale (2011, p. 13) suggests that “the type of
instruction delivered in various online delivery models can vary from fully online
instruction…to face-to-face instruction, in which the teacher still delivers most of the
instruction”. Howland and Moore (2002, p. 186) suggest that an online course is defined as
“one in which no more than one face-to-face meeting is required” and that “the terms Internet
and online are used interchangeably”. In a slightly contrasting view, Bollinger and Wasilik
(2009, p. 103) report that a course can be considered an online course “if 80% or more of the
content is delivered via the Internet”.
According to Picciano (2006) there is no clear single pedagogy of online learning
although vendors of learning management systems such as Blackboard can be quite specific:
”online learning encompasses a range of technologies such as the worldwide-web, email, chat, newsgroups, and text, audio and video conferencing
delivered over computer networks (local area networks, intranets or the
public Internet) to deliver education and training, both remotely and in the
classroom” (Backroad Connections Pty Ltd, 2005, p. 4).
However, the use of online learning to describe a mode of education is becoming less
common (KPMG Consulting Australia & LifeLong Learning Associates, 2002) and “pure
online learning has largely been replaced by a recognition of the benefits of hybrid or mixed
modes, combining online features with face to face interaction in various ways” (Backroad
Connections Pty Ltd, 2005, p. 5). The literature has not yet established whether online
education is “a subset of distance education or to be regarded as a separate field of
12
educational endeavor” (Schlosser & Simonson, 2009, p. 25). Online study cannot therefore be
defined by whether students are studying off-campus or on-campus. With the incorporation
of digital devices in almost all aspects of learning in the classroom or off-campus, all students
now engage in e-learning in some manner, however basic.
If the University chooses to adopt an online focus for its strategic and promotional
purposes, it should consider “how students perceive studying using online materials and the
barriers students face when studying online for the first time” (Lund & Volet, 1998, n.p.). It
is difficult for institutions and academics, let alone the students, to identify which online
learning environments lead to valuable learning outcomes and which don’t” (Lockee et al.,
2011) and there are empirical studies such as those by McLoughlin and Luca (2003) attesting
to negative learner experiences online such as feelings of anonymity and isolation.
Similarly, Muilenburg and Berge (2005) found that the key underlying constructs that
specifically represented student barriers and prompted adverse perceptions of online learning
were social interaction, technical skills, cost and access to the internet and technical
problems. The lack of social interaction was seen as the most severe barrier and is “strongly
related to online learning enjoyment, effectiveness of learning online, and the likelihood of
taking another online class” (Muilenburg & Berge, 2005, p. 45). Students” negative online
experiences will inevitably influence the way that they and others perceive the advantages
and disadvantages of this mode of study and how this may result in an increased risk of their
dropping out, reduced motivation or lower overall satisfaction with the learning experience
(Muilenburg & Berge, 2005).
A survey by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities of public colleges
and universities in the United States found that “70 per cent of all faculty members believe
the learning outcomes of online courses to be either inferior or somewhat inferior, compared
with face-to-face instruction” (Parry, 2009, n.p.), while Jung and Latchem (2012) maintain
13
that quality assurance in open and distance learning remains a contentious issue. The
increasing trend to online education raises questions of equity for students from
disadvantaged cohorts, whether domestic or international, especially related to their ability to
gain appropriate online access. Another factor of concern to prospective online students is
recognition of their degrees locally and internationally. In the United States for example, the
federal government has “considered revising requirements that students wanting to qualify
for federal assistance can take no more than 50% of their course load online” (Caruth &
Caruth, 2013, p. 146).
Learning institutions that are new to off-campus teaching and learning have been
eager to suggest replacement of the term distance education with in-vogue terms such as
online education, distributed learning (Campbell & Bourne, 1997; Hitt & Hartman, 2002; Lea
& Nicoll, 2002), web-based education (Aggarwal, 2000; N. Anderson, 2000; Boulton, 2002),
and networked learning (Goodyear et al., 2001; Steeples & Jones, 2002). Lund and Volet
(1998, p. 89) suggest that the term distance education provides a positive description of a
learning environment that is independent of the communication medium and that “we must
resist the seduction of catchy labels and the temptation to mark our intellectual territory by
layering new jargon over the old”.
The best and the worst of online learning may be represented by the current trend
towards MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), a term proposed in 2008 by George
Siemens and Stephen Downes (Rodriguez, 2013, p. 67). As indicated by Daniel (2012, n.p.),
“while the hype about MOOCs presaging a revolution in higher education has focussed on
their scale, the real revolution is that universities with scarcity at the heart of their business
models are embracing openness”. Although the power of MOOCs to provide access to
learning for thousands of students located anywhere in the world is impressive (Dodd, 2012),
14
they also raise questions about how the learning outcomes from a MOOC model can achieve
equivalence with those of on-campus and other forms of off-campus teaching and learning.
Flexible learning
The Australian National Training Authority defines flexibility for learners as
“anticipating and responding to their ever-changing needs and expectations, thus expanding
their choice in what, when, where, and how they learn” (Backroad Connections Pty Ltd,
2005, p. 3). Flexible learning has also been described as “enabling learners to learn when they
want (frequency, timing, duration), how they want (modes of learning), and what they want
(that is learners can define what constitutes learning to them)” (Brande (1994) cited in
Willems, 2005, p. 429).
The literature suggests that “online is a subset of elearning and e-learning is a subset
of flexible learning”, with online and e-learning about specific technologies whereas
“flexible learning is a philosophy and an approach, of which the use of technology is one,
albeit very important, component” (Backroad Connections Pty Ltd, 2005, p. 5). Flexible
learning is seen as an approach to university education that provides students with the
opportunity to take greater responsibility for their learning and to be engaged in learning
activities and opportunities that meet their own individual needs (Richardson, 2000). Students
who wish to study by flexible modes tend to enrol in courses externally (Hagel & Shaw,
2006). However, research suggests that “flexible learning options can be anything but
flexible, constraining students in ways they had not imagined, and causing untold
frustrations” (Willems, 2005, p. 430). Frequently used terms such as flexible learning, online
learning and e-learning “are understood in very diverse ways by providers and clients.
Consequently what they do under these headings, and the judgements they make about the
outcomes and outputs vary greatly” (KPMG Consulting Australia & LifeLong Learning
Associates, 2002, p. 82).
15
Flexible learning has similarities to open learning (discussed below) but has
constraints, and there are degrees of flexibility (Beattie & James, 1997). In practice at
Australian universities, rarely does the level of flexibility extend beyond the means by which
students interact with staff, learning resources and fellow students, and there is little
flexibility in terms of commencement, selection of courses, duration and choice of
assessment. McDonald and Postle (1999, n.p.) suggest that “the adoption of the concept of
flexible delivery has been a key initiative in many institutions although this concept has been
interpreted in many ways”. However, flexible learning “does not necessarily equate with
effective learning, as simply providing a range of options does not bring with it deep
learning” (Willems, 2005, p. 434). Although there has been considerable growth in the use of
flexible methods of delivery for learning and development, it is important that adequate
consideration is given to individual differences in learning styles, preferences and strategies
(Sadler-Smith & Smith, 2004). At one stage, the University’s mantra was “fast, fluid and
flexible” (Taylor, 2001, p. 2), but it was eventually abandoned by the University and no
longer appears on promotional material. It has now been replaced in the strategic plan by the
promise of personalised learning (Thomas, 2012) which reflects the characteristics of open
and flexible learning.
The proposed changes at the University do not appear to heed the advice of Willems
(2005, p. 434) who suggested that changes in learning environments should not take place
without consideration of the expectations and needs of existing students, as “some learners
may become disenfranchised in such processes by their inability to adapt to the changes or in
their prior learning preferences”.
The literature highlights that it is the total experience of study at university that
“shapes students‘ judgements of quality, motivates their engagement in learning, and
optimises their retention” (Scott, 2006, p. xiii), and should incorporate flexible and relevant
16
course design, committed and responsive staff, efficient administrative support, and relevant
and integrated assessment (Scott, 2006). In a cautionary note, the findings from research by
Hagel and Shaw (2006, p. 299) “call into question the migration by Australian universities
towards more ICT-intensive, flexible forms of delivery” as students indicate that “web-based
delivery did not outperform print-based delivery on convenience, time-efficiency, and
flexibility”.
Blended learning/block intensive/hybrid mode
In a change of direction for the University, most postgraduate students at the new
University campus near Brisbane are enrolled in coursework programs that are now delivered
via a learning and teaching model referred to as “block intensive mode” or “intensive
workshop mode” (http://www.usq.edu.au/current-students/learning-support/residentialschools/postgraduate-workshops). However, the description of this blended model is met with
confusion on the part of staff, prospective students and the general public as evidenced at
recruiting functions and orientation sessions. The term blended learning is being used with
increasing frequency in academic writing but “closer scrutiny reveals there is considerable
disagreement regarding the meaning of the term” (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003, p. 227).
An alternative term, hybrid, is defined as being of “mixed character; composed of
different elements” (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hybrid?q=hybrid), and
blended is defined as “an unobtrusive or harmonious part of a greater whole”
(http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/blend?q=blended). Blended learning has
been described as a hybrid instructional approach combining aspects of e-learning and a
traditional classroom environment (Ward & LaBranche (2003), cited in Smart & Cappel,
2006, p. 204) and defined as “courses that deliver material both face-to-face and online” and
where “students interact with instructors both online and face-to-face” (Caruth & Caruth,
17
2013, p. 142). The goals of blended learning include “pedagogical richness, access to
knowledge, social interaction and personal agency” (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003, p. 231).
The reasons that students choose one university and/or program over another are not
clear, and vary from student to student and from institution to institution (Connelly &
Halliday, 2001; Soutar & Turner, 2002). Student surveys show that postgraduate students are
not attracted to the timing and attendance commitments associated with on-campus study
environments but are concerned about studying at a distance due to a perception of isolation
and lack of support (Lake, 1999).
The “intensive workshop” mode comprises two three-day intensive workshops over
weekends in addition to what students receive in external or online mode. This way of
delivering the program may be seen as consistent with the “flipped classroom” (Tucker,
2012). To provide students with access to on-campus resources for the six days of the
workshop they are required to enrol in ONC (on-campus) mode. This not only deters many
students from selecting this blended mode, but few even consider any thought of on-campus
study as a component of their part-time and predominantly off-campus learning mode.
An in-class poll conducted with students on the preferred naming of the intensive
workshop mode revealed that such terms lack clarity and that there was no consensus among
students as to the preferred name. Feedback included recommendations against the use of the
word “on-campus” because of the implication that it required on-going regular on-campus
contact. The outcome of the survey was inconclusive with no particular preference for one
term over another, as indicated in Table 2 which lists the possible names for the intensive
workshops, those suggested by students and the number of votes received for each name.
Table 2: Summary of student responses to naming of intensive workshop mode
Description of mode
Number
of votes
18
No.
Studentsuggested
name
Intensive workshop mode
On-campus intensive workshop mode
On-campus workshop mode
On-campus intensive block mode
On-campus executive block mode
Enhanced distance education mode
On-campus executive mode
On-campus concentrated learning mode
On-campus concentrated workshop
On-campus block mode
mode
Executive
block mode
Workshop mode
Face-to-face learning mode
Optional on-campus workshop
On-campus mode
On-campus concentrated block mode
Block mode
Intensive block mode
Concentrated block mode
Executive mode
TOTAL VOTES














4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25






With the University, students enrolled in on-campus mode are in a similar situation to
that of off-campus students in most respects as they receive the same physical learning
resources and undertake the majority of their learning tasks off-campus. However, they are
entitled to participate in on-campus face-to-face learning activities in two blocks of three
days. The on-campus students enjoy all of the benefits and flexibility that off-campus
students enjoy, but gain considerable value from participation in collaborative learning
activities in a face-to-face classroom environment. Students are constantly surveyed on their
experiences, and as one student put it, “If a picture is worth 1000 words, then an intensive
workshop is worth 1000 hours of independent reading”.
Another student indicated that “the intensive mode creates a focussed learning
environment in which I can crystallise my thinking and…frees me to think more creatively
than I might otherwise and provides a challenging and intellectually stimulating learning
environment”. Student feedback on the block intensive mode indicates higher levels of
19
engagement between students, academics, practitioners and professional staff, and these
meaningful relationships foster deeper learning experiences. As one student stated: “…the
best things include meeting people, listening to ‘reality checks’ provided by guest speakers,
gaining some focus on assignment approaches”.
The goal of a blended learning experience is “to provide a mix of both on-line and
face-to-face experiences which support each other in achieving desired learning outcomes”
(Ginns & Ellis, 2007, p. 55). Many universities experiment with a blended learning model as
part of their teaching strategy, but “the term is still relatively new therefore leaving many to
question how the mixing of online and mobile learning with face to face interaction will
actually improve student experience now and in the long term” (IQPC Australia, 2012). This
hybrid mixture of off-campus and on-campus activities (Hannay & Newvine, 2006) is
difficult to explain to prospective students and feedback from those attending the actual
workshops have indicated that what one sees as “too intensive” is seen as “far from
intensive” by another.
Open learning
Higher education has been experiencing “a shift from supply driven to demand
driven” (Latchem & Hanna, 2002, p. 203) as well as an increasing trend towards openness in
education following an earlier strong focus in the 1970s and 1980s (Bell & Tight, 1993;
Holmberg, 1989, 1994; Katz, 1972). However, open learning is not specific to distance
education as it can equally apply to on-campus study and off-campus study. The Open
University (OU) (http://www.open.ac.uk/) in the United Kingdom and other universities
offering similar models of open education have provided increasing levels of openness and
flexibility for students undertaking tertiary study (Gourley & Lane, 2009). The OU UK
opened in 1971 and its most radical aspect was its admissions policy which did not insist on
any prior educational qualifications. The fundamental mission of the OU UK was to be “open
20
to people, places, methods and ideas” (Gourley & Lane, 2009, p. 57). It has also been a leader
in the adoption of educational technologies in order to extend its reach and has been at the
forefront in Europe in the Open Educational Resources movement with the establishment of
its OpenLearn program (http://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/the-ou-explained/history-the-ou)
in 2006.
Open learning places greater emphasis on the specific needs of students and “shifts
from mass production and mass consumption to a focus on local and individual needs and
requirements” (Schlosser & Simonson, 2009, p. 6). The dimensions of openness can be
significant including removal of barriers associated with eligibility, pathways into and
through academic programs, an unrestricted choice of program or individual subjects of
study, commencement times, duration of study, learning modes, learning tasks, and choice
and submission of assessment activities. Open education is not related to whether students are
on- or off-campus, but rather reflects the absence of barriers to all aspects of the student
learning experience and reflects the need for high levels of flexibility from the student
perspective (Spencer, 1995). This can be sometimes frustrated by rigid institutional
guidelines where for example “learning assessment may be linked with on-campus academic
rhythms, which may not resonate with off-campus learners” (Willems, 2005, p. 433).
Positive examples of openness in tertiary studies can be seen in two Australian higher
education institutions. The Open Training and Education Network (OTEN) is the largest
provider of distance education and vocational training in Australia
(http://oten.tafensw.edu.au/about/). OTEN is part of the TAFE NSW - Western Sydney
Institute and has flexible policies that allow students to commence their studies at a time that
suits them and to progress at a rate that suits them, plus other aspects of study that reflect a
true openness and personalised learning from a student perspective
(http://oten.tafensw.edu.au/). As a variation on the more common MOOC (massive open
21
online course) model for which students normally gain no credits, the University of New
England has introduced open online courses for which students can choose to undertake
assessment for a nominal fee and thus gain credit for the course towards a degree program
(http://www.une.edu.au/for/uneopen/uneopen.php).
A recent development towards greater openness in higher education has been the open
education resource (OER) movement (Caswell, Henson, Jensen, & Wiley, 2008; Laurillard,
2008) which has “focused on promoting and enabling the creation and distribution of
educational resources and OpenCourseWare (OCW) to a global audience” (T. Morgan &
Carey, 2009, p. 2). The MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) launched its
OpenCourseWare (OCW) Initiative in 2001 as a “Web-based publishing venture, not as
teaching at a distance” (Mulder, 2006, p. 1), and this has inspired other institutions to set up
similar projects leading to the formation of the Open CourseWare Consortium (Mulder, 2006,
p. 2). Vest (cited in Mulder, 2006, p. 8) has suggested that we are seeing “the emergence of
meta-universities providing a framework of open materials and platforms on which much of
higher education worldwide can be constructed or enhanced”. However OCW resources are
often not pedagogically designed materials and students require good self-study skills to take
advantage of them (Gourley & Lane, 2009).
Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are an ideal online model for delivering
learning content to virtually anyone who wants to enrol but the level of openness of the
MOOC makes it “vulnerable to inappropriate behavior” (Educause, 2011, n.p.). Given the
lack of academic support for students enrolled in a MOOC, students can be quickly
overwhelmed and this has helped to reignite “the debate of online versus classroom teaching”
(Skiba, 2012, p. 417).
Openness can be improved through increased levels of interaction, the importance of
which has long been recognised (Moore, 1989, 1993). Moore identified three critical
22
dimensions of interaction in learning from the perspective of the student – student/peer,
student/teacher and student/resources. Sims (2003) has explored the issue of interactivity
further and highlighted the link between interactivity and collaborative learning. He has also
highlighted the confusion surrounding this concept among those in the education field.
The six dimensions of interaction below reflect the learning experience from the day a
student makes initial contact with the University to the day the student decides that their
formal learning is at an end:

Interaction with the learning institution: Community building: This is essential to
bring together the key stakeholders to create a truly student-centred environment
consistent with the image promoted by the University.

Interaction with the learning facilitator: Learner-centredness: This is reflected in
authentic teaching and learning tasks and activities (Bates, 1991; Kearsley &
Schneiderman, 1999; Moore, 1989) in the hybrid intensive workshop program.

Interaction with other students: Collaborative learning; The intensive workshop
model stems from constructivist models of teaching and learning that stress the need
for a social and dialogical learning environment incorporating collaboration and
interaction between students (Garrison, 1997; Jonassen, 2003; Steeples, Jones, &
Goodyear, 2002).

Interaction with the workplace and practitioners: Situated learning: The intensive
workshop model locates the learning experience in the world of the student and the
industry-based workplace (Herrington, 1999; Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Interaction with learning resources: Learning support: The intensive workshop
model provides the contextualised resources and support necessary for student to
engage with the learning process and the curriculum related to their areas of study
23
(Barrie, McAllister, Mortenson, Worrall, & Dawson, 1996; McLoughlin, 2002; Tait,
2000).

Interaction with assessment: Learning outcomes: Hybrid intensive workshops allow
students to work collaboratively and reflect the need to focus on assessment activities
as an integral part of the learning process as well as confirmation of achievement of
learning objectives (Centre for the Study of Higher Education, 2002; Kretovics &
McCambridge, 2002; Oliver, 2000).
Summary
Based on the above analysis of competing terms for higher education delivery modes, the key
points identified are summarised as a matrix in Table 2 where:

Learning environments have been reduced to seven generic types as indicated in the
rows with some modes aggregated where they have been shown to be equivalent.

Each of the seven types of learning environment has attributes which correspond to
the seven column headings. For example, flexible learning offers flexibility by
definition and those intersecting cells are shaded black and contain “yes”.

Block intensive/blended/hybrid mode has “yes” at the intersections with face-to-face
mode and off-campus learning activity as these are both integral components of that
mode.

Attributes that are incompatible with a learning environment are shown as “no”. For
example, there should be no requirement for an external student to take part in oncampus face-to-face learning activities.

Other attributes are shown as “possible” where it is not an inherent or mandatory
dimension of that environment. For example, all environments may offer flexibility
24
but flexibility may not be an inherent attribute. This analysis illustrates the lack of
precision in the use of most terms describing the learning environments.
Table 2: Learning environments and attributes
Learning
environment
On-campus
Attribute of learning environment
Face to
OffOnline
face
campus access and
classroom learning participation
learning
activity
activity
Yes
Possible Possible
Computerbased
learning
activity
Flexibility
Intensive
/
blended
Openness
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Off-campus /
distance
learning /
external
learning
Online
learning /
networked
learning
No
Yes
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Yes
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
e-learning /
computerbased
learning
Flexible
learning
Possible
Possible
Possible
Yes
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Yes
Possible
Possible
Block
intensive /
blended
learning
mode /
hybrid
Open
learning
Yes
Yes
Possible
Possible
Possible
Yes
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Possible
Yes
The cell containing “no” reflects that an off-campus / distance / external learning
environment is inconsistent with any requirement to participate in on-campus face-to-face
learning activities, and enrolment guidelines for a truly off-campus mode should reflect that
exclusion. However, it is common to see programs offered in “off-campus” mode that include
a mandatory component of on-campus activity - this should more accurately be presented as
a blended or hybrid learning environment.
25
Some intersecting cells contain the term “possible” which indicates that it is a
possible attribute of that learning environment but not a mandatory one. The matrix indicates
the lack of clarity in the terminology of the various learning environments and what is
expected of a student in each of those learning environments. It also reflects the lack of
clarity in what is expected of academic staff in the design of the respective learning
environments, leading to an inconsistent and frustrating experience for students as they move
from institution to institution, program to program and course to course.
The University’s strategic message
The findings from the analysis above provide guidelines for the University in
implementing appropriate learning environments at a strategic level, how they should be
defined at an operational level and how they should be promoted to students to accurately the
learning experiences they will experience. Students are then better equipped to choose the
most appropriate learning environment and study mode to suit their personal learning
objectives and learning styles, and can clearly understand the implications of choosing one
mode over another.
In a review of higher education and the role of universities, Ernst & Young (2012, p.
4) have suggested that “…campuses will remain, but digital technologies will transform the
way education is delivered and accessed, and the way “value” is created by higher education
providers, public and private alike”. Market demands may force the University to develop
new learning environments and study modes that reflect their new business model.
Conclusion
The University promises “personalised learning” (Thomas, 2012) but has yet to
articulate how that is to be operationalized within the University as a learning environment
and mode of study. The literature suggests that the choice of an “online” theme for the
26
University runs the risk of deterring those students who have negative perceptions of an
online learning environment, especially international students who make up twenty per cent
of all enrolments.
The use of terminology such as flexible, blended or hybrid does not convey a
meaningful image of the learning environment to prospective students in comparison to the
more recognisable image conveyed by the term distance education. The literature suggests
that a message of openness best fits with the strategic plan and the University’s promise, but
the University has yet shown little tendency to move towards a truly open learning
environment.
Arguably, once an institution is clear on the delivery modes it is using for student
access to courses, prospective students will have a clearer understanding of the attendance
options available.
List of references
Aggarwal, A. (Ed.). (2000). Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies: Opportunities
and Challenges. Hershey, USA.: Idea Group Publishing.
AMIDEAST. (2012). Evaluating a distance education program Retrieved 10 September,
2012, from http://www.amideast.org/usstudy/other-us-study-options/evaluatingdistance-education-program
Anderson, N. (2000, 26 June to 1 July). Web-based: instructional effectiveness. Paper
presented at the Ed-Media 2000, Montreal, Canada.
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2010). Three generations of distance education pedagogy (Vol.
12).
Austrade. (2012). Education to China Retrieved 10 September, 2012, from
http://www.austrade.gov.au/Education-to-China/default.aspx
Backroad Connections Pty Ltd. (2005). Definition of key terms used in e-learning: Australian
National Training Authority.
Barrie, S., McAllister, L., Mortenson, L., Worrall, L., & Dawson, V. (1996). Pathways to
professional competence: Supporting student learning. Paper presented at the
Different approaches: Theory and practice in higher education, Perth.
http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/barrie.html
Bates, A. (1991). Interactivity as a criterion for media selection in distance education. Never
Too Far, 16, 5-9.
Beattie, K., & James, R. (1997). Flexible coursework delivery to Australian postgraduates:
How effective is the teaching and learning? Higher Education, 33(2), 177-194.
Bell, R., & Tight, M. (1993). Open universities: a British tradition? Buckingham, UK:
Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
27
Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online
teaching and learning in higher education. Distance education, 30(1), 103-116. doi:
10.1080/01587910902845949
Boulton, J. (2002). Web-based distance education: Pedagogy, epistemology, and instructional
design Retrieved 28 February, 2003, from
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/boulton/index.htm
Campbell, J. O., & Bourne, J. (1997). Designing distributed learning systems vol 1 Issue 2.
Retrieved 22 February, 2003, from
http://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v1n2/campbell.asp
Caruth, G. D., & Caruth, D. L. (2013). Distance education in the United States: from
correspondence courses to the internet. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 14(2), 141-149.
Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open content and open educational
resources: Enabling universal education. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 9(1).
Centre for the Study of Higher Education. (2002). Assessing large classes. Assessing
Learning in Australian Universities: Ideas, strategies and resources for quality in
student assessment Retrieved 7 April 2008, from
http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/03/large.html
Connelly, G., & Halliday, J. (2001). Reasons for choosing a further education: The views of
700 new entrants. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 53(2), 181-192.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and
possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3.
Dawkins, J. (1988). Higher Education: a policy statement (White Paper). Canberra:
Department of Employment, Education and Training.
Dodd, T. (2012). Free online courses will change universities. Financial Review. Retrieved
from
http://www.afr.com/p/national/education/free_online_courses_will_change_7ngMdH
AbNt5JXJFgLqR79O
Educause. (2011). Things you should know about...MOOCs. Educause Learning Initiative,
(November). Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7078.pdf
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. (2013). Typology Britannica Academic Edition. Sydney,
Australia: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Erdos, R. F. (1986). Some developments in distance education in Australia. Ziff Papiere, 61.
Ernst & Young. (2012). University of the future: A thousand year old industry on the cusp of
profound change: Ernst & Young.
Forsyth, H., Pizzica, J., Laxton, R., & Mahony, M. J. (2010). Distance education in an era of
eLearning: challenges and opportunities for a campus‐focused institution. Higher
Education Research & Development, 29(1), 15-28. doi: 10.1080/07294360903421350
Garrison, D. (1997). Computer conferencing: The post-industrial age of distance education.
Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 3-11.
Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships
between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher
Education, 10(1), 53-64. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.003
Goodyear, P., Hodgson, V., Steeples, C., Jones, C., Asensio, M., O'Donoghue, M., . . .
Hutchinson, D. (2001). Networked learning in higher education: Notes and guidelines.
Lancaster: Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technologies.
Gourley, B., & Lane, A. (2009). Re‐invigorating openness at The Open University: the role
of Open Educational Resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and
e-Learning, 24(1), 57-65. doi: 10.1080/02680510802627845
28
Hagel, P., & Shaw, R. N. (2006). Students' Perceptions of Study Modes. Distance education,
27(3), 283-302. doi: 10.1080/01587910600940398
Hannay, M., & Newvine, T. (2006). Perceptions of distance learning: A comparison of online
and traditional learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 1-11.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, Ron. (1999). Using Situated Learning and Multimedia to Investigate
Higher-Order Thinking. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(4),
401-422.
Higgins, K., & Harreveld, R. E. (2011). The casual academic in university distance education
from isolation to integration - a prescription for change. Paper presented at the
DEHub & Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia 2011-2021 Summit:
Global challenges and perspectives of blended and distance learning.
http://hdl.cqu.edu.au/10018/918753
Hitt, J. C., & Hartman, J. L. (2002). Distributed Learning: New Challenges and Opportunities
for Institutional Leadership. In A. C. o. Education (Ed.), Distributed Education:
Challenges, Choices, and a New Environment. Washington: American Council on
Education Center for Policy Analysis.
Holmberg, B. (1989). The Concepts and Applications of Distance Education and Open
Learning.
Holmberg, B. (1994). Open universities - their rationale, characteristics and prospects Ziff
Papiere, 92(June).
Howland, J. L., & Moore, J. L. (2002). Student Perceptions as Distance Learners in InternetBased Courses. Distance education, 23(2), 183-195. doi:
10.1080/0158791022000009196
IQPC Australia. (2012). How will a blended learning model improve student experience?
Retrieved 7 March 2013, 2013, from http://www.blendedlearning.com.au/uploadedFiles/EventRedesign/Australia/2012/August/21475001/Asse
ts/Microsoft%20Word%20%20Blended%20Learning%20and%20Student%20Experience.pdf
Jonassen, D. (2003). Designing of Constructivist Learning Environments Retrieved 28
February, 2003, from http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~jonassen/courses/CLE/index.html
Jung, I., & Latchem, C. (2012). Quality assurance and accreditation in distance education and
e-learning: models, policies and research. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
Katz, L. G. (1972). Research on Open Education: Problems and Issues.
Kearsley, G., & Schneiderman, B. (1999). Engagement theory: A framework for technologybased teaching and learning Retrieved 10 July, 2003, from
http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm
Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
KPMG Consulting Australia & LifeLong Learning Associates. (2002). Evaluation of the
Australian flexible learning framework 2000 – 2001: Australian National Training
Authority.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported
collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1).
Kretovics, M., & McCambridge, J. (2002). Measuring MBA student learning: Does distance
make a difference? The International Review of Research into Open and Distance
Learning, 3(2), 1-18.
Lake, D. (1999). Reducing isolation for distance students: An online initiative. Open
Learning, 14(3), 14-23.
Latchem, C., & Hanna, D. E. (2002). Leadership for open and flexible learning Open
Learning, 17(3), 203-215.
29
Laurillard, D. (2008). Open teaching: The key to sustainable and effective open education.
Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open
technology, open content, and open knowledge, 319-336.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lea, M. R., & Nicoll, K. (Eds.). (2002). Distributed learning: Social and cultural approaches
to practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Lockee, B., Perkins, R., Potter, K., Burton, J., & Kreb, S. (2011). Defining qualty in distance
education: examining national and international standards in online learning. Paper
presented at the 27th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning,
Madison, USA.
Lund, C., & Volet, S. (1998). Barriers to studying online for the first time: Students'
perceptions. Paper presented at the Planning for Progress, Partnership and Profit,
Perth.
McDonald, J., & Postle, G. (1999). Teaching online: Challenge to a reinterpretation of
traditional instructional models. Paper presented at the AusWeb 99 Fifth Australian
World Wide Web Conference, Lismore, Australia.
http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw99/papers/mcdonald/paper.htm
McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments:
Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162.
McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2003). Investigating the quality of the student experience online:
Social engagement factors. Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational
Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Chesapeake, Vancouver
http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm/files/paper_13902.pdf?fuseaction=Reader.Downloa
dFullText&paper_id=13902
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. [Editorial]. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1-7.
Moore, M. (Ed.). (1993). Theory of transactional distance (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Morgan, C. K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unravelling the complexities of distance education
student attrition. Distance education, 20(1), 96-108. doi: 10.1080/0158791990200108
Morgan, T., & Carey, S. (2009). From Open Content to Open Course Models: Increasing
Access and Enabling Global Participation in Higher Education (Vol. 10).
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor
analytic study. Distance education, 26(1), 29-48. doi: 10.1080/01587910500081269
Mulder, F. (2006). The advancement of Lifelong Learning through Open Educational
Resources in an open and flexible (self) learning context. Presentations Dies Natalis.
Retrieved from
http://www.ou.nl/Docs/Campagnes/SCOP/OER_paper_by_Fred_Mulder.pdf
Natale, C. F. (2011). Teaching in the world of virtual k–12 learning: challenges to ensure
educator quality: Educational Testing Service.
Oliver, M. (2000). Developing and evaluating courses to meet learning outcomes Retrieved 3
September, 2008, from http://www.warwick.ac.uk/ETS/interactions/vol4no1/
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments. [Article].
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
Parry, M. (2009). Professors embrace online courses despite qualms about quality. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from Technology website:
http://chronicle.com/article/Professors-Embrace-Online/48235
Pollard, E., & Hillage, J. (2001). Exploring e-Learning (pp. 67). Grantham, United Kingdom:
The Institute for Employment Studies.
30
Richardson, J. (2000). Researching student learning: Approaches to studying in campusbased and distance education. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher
Education and the Open University Press.
Roberts, D. (2000). Continuity and change in distance education at Australian universities:
Some personal reflections. Paper presented at the Distance education: An open
question? Conference, Novotel Hotel, Adelaide.
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/cccc/papers/refereed/paper39/Paper39-1.htm
Rodriguez, C. O. (2013). Two distinct course formats in the delivery of connectivist moocs.
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 66-80.
Sadler-Smith, E., & Smith, P. J. (2004). Strategies for accommodating individuals’ styles and
preferences in flexible learning programmes. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 35(4), 395-412.
Schlosser, L. A., & Simonson, M. R. (2009). Distance education: definition and glossary of
terms. Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Scott, G. (2006). Accessing the student voice: Using CEQuery to identify what retains
students and promotes engagement in productive learning in Australian higher
education. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Sims, R. (2003). Promises of interactivity: aligning learner perceptions and expectations with
strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance education, 24(1), 87-103.
Skiba, D. J. (2012). Disruption in Higher Education: Massively Open Online Courses
(MOOCs). Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(6), 416-417. doi: 10.5480/1536-502633.6.416
Smart, K. L., & Cappel, J. J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of online learning: a comparative
study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 201-219.
Soutar, G. N., & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: a conjoint
analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40-45.
Spencer, B. (1995). Removing barriers and enhancing openness: Distance education as social
adult education. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'enseignement à distance,
10(2), 87-104. Retrieved from
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/237/600
Steeples, C., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2002). Networked learning: Perspectives and issues.
London: Springer Verlag.
Steeples, C., Jones, C., & Goodyear, P. (2002). Beyond e-learning: A future for networked
learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and
issues (pp. 323-342). London: Springer Verlag.
Tait, A. (2000). Planning student support for open and distance learning. Open Learning,
15(3), 287-299.
Taylor, J. (2001). Fifth generation distance education. Paper presented at the 20th ICDE
World Conference, Düsseldorf.
http://www.usq.edu.au/users/taylorj/publications_presentations/5thGenerationDE.doc
Thomas, J. (2012). Draft Strategic Plan 2013-2015 Promise Fulfilled. University of Southern
Queensland. Toowoomba.
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.
Willems, J. (2005). Flexible Learning: Implications of “when-ever”, “where-ever” and “whatever”. Distance education, 26(3), 429-435. doi: 10.1080/01587910500291579
31