| | OCTOBER 20238IN MY OPINION What we talk about when we talk about flexibilityBy Stuart Allan, Director of Digital Learning, Arden University The idea that learning, teaching and assessment should work flexibly around students' lives is an inviting one. Although some universities were quick to snap back to long-established models at the end of the pandemic, others are now considering more flexible approaches for the first time as a way of broadening their reach (and, let's be honest, generating additional income). And among students, pandemic-era arrangements have accelerated pre-existing debates about exactly what a university education is, what it's for, and how it should be provided. The term `flexibility' is itself highly malleable, with its meaning often stretched to mean different things to different people. However, in UK higher education at least, flexible approaches can be loosely grouped into three categories: blended (a mixture of face-to-face and online classes, with teaching usually taking place `live' and in cohorts), hyflex (hybrid and flexible, including a mixture of online and face-to-face live teaching, with some asynchronous online learning) and `full flex' (where students can start and finish their course at any point, studying entirely online at times of their choosing).The idea of flexing the times and spaces of higher education troubles some of its most cherished assumptions, particularly about student engagement. Critics have often compared flexible approaches unfavourably with the perceived `gold standard' of a fully campus-based education, designed around institutionally defined locations and timetables. They argue that meaningful engagement can only occur when students and teachers are co-present in the same time and place. However, advocates of flexibility would argue that such campus nostalgia has little basis in evidence, and that its assumptions idealise a very particular kind of student ­ active, collaborative and highly communicative ­ to the exclusion of others. These assumptions can also lead to a superficial emphasis on visible, observable forms of student engagement in activity and assessment design ­ for example, grading contributions to in-class or online discussions ­ over quieter, more reflective approaches (which are sometimes dismissed as `passive' or `lurking' behaviours). The potential benefits of flexibility for students are clear: they open up educational opportunities to individuals who have work, family or other caring responsibilities, who live a long distance from university campuses, or experience other barriers to access. Not requiring co-presence at predefined times offers students a sense of control and Stuart Allan
< Page 7 | Page 9 >