learning and to be engaged in learning activities and opportunities that meet their own individual needs (). Students who wish to study by flexible modes tend to enrol in courses externally (). However, research suggests that “flexible learning options can be anything but flexible, constraining students in ways they had not imagined, and causing untold frustrations” (). Frequently used terms such as flexible learning, online learning and “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” (). Flexible learning has similarities to open learning (discussed below) but has constraints, and there are degrees of flexibility (). 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 () 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” (). 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 (). At one stage, the University’s mantra was “fast, fluid and flexible” (), 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 () which reflects the characteristics of open and flexible learning. The proposed changes at the University do not appear to heed the advice of ) 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” (), and should incorporate flexible and relevant course design, committed and responsive staff, efficient administrative support, and relevant and integrated assessment (). In a cautionary note, the findings from research by Hagel and Shaw () “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 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 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” (). 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” (). An alternative term, hybrid, is defined as being of “mixed character; composed of different elements” (), and blended is defined as “an unobtrusive or harmonious part of a greater whole” (). Blended learning has been described as a hybrid instructional approach combining aspects of e-learning and a traditional classroom environment () and defined as
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 () 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” () 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 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.