Becoming flexible: Resolving the paradox of teacher-directed student-centred learning

While teachers may perceive the value of flexible, student-centred learning, particularly in terms of the benefits of new technologies, this value may not be universally accepted by the students whom they teach. It can be argued that teachers need to be flexible about becoming flexible, and to recognise the paradox of imposing self-direction on students.

This paper provides a case study which describes such an experience with a group of graduate nursing students. It examines the results of an evaluation conducted to identify student and teacher perceptions of the experience, with a view to offering some recommendations which might be transferable to other situations, in order to better prepare students for flexible learning, and allow them to reap the pedagogical benefits of a variety of student-centred learning approaches.

Introduction

Yet despite the body of research into students' approaches to learning (and associated contextual factors) following the distinction between deep and surface learning approaches by Marton and Säljö (1976), the benefits of student-centredness are not necessarily accepted by students themselves. A negative reaction to participation in self-directed study experiments was reported nearly 40 years ago by Gruber and Weitman (1962). Such a reaction (then and now) is not surprising if one accepts that 'the products of our educational system don't know how to learn - they only know how to be taught' (Knowles, 1984, p.219). Candy (1991, p.374) discusses the concept of learned helplessness as one way of looking at learners' 'apparent preference for the traditional patterns of instruction.' Candy also notes three contextual limitations to self-direction in learning (the need to obtain 'domain-specific' skills, the emphasis on individual self-direction at the expense of the inherently social nature of learning, and the person-situation variability of self-directedness), which result in important situational limits and constraints on self-direction in learning. In the case study discussed in this paper, the need to obtain domain-specific skills does indeed appear to discourage self-direction, as do expectations associated with previous traditional learning experiences. However, new technologies offer opportunities to encourage collaborative self-direction which may well be a key to resolving the paradox expressed in the paper's title.

The person-situation variability of self-directedness appears entirely consistent with the importance of context in other respects in determining students' approaches to learning (Ramsden, 1997). Recognising the role of context points to the need to be flexible about becoming flexible, tailoring changes to the needs of the students concerned. While this could be seen to be in conflict with the need for inflexible institutional level decisions necessary to facilitate a university-wide approach to enabling flexibility (Laurillard and Margetson, 1997), Ayer and Smith (1998) state that any form of flexible learning requires a strong institutional framework of support and guidance for the student. Resolving the paradox at this level may involve recognising that within broad guidelines, necessarily inflexible to allow flexibility to occur, there may be limitations which influence context-specific decisions.

A case study

In addition, a fortnightly face-to-face tutorial on the clinical cases was arranged to correspond with each section of the study material. Students were advised that they might be asked to present details of their cases during this tutorial. Each section was also accompanied by online formative self-assessment questions to test content knowledge. It was assumed that students without Internet access at home or work would be able to complete these while on campus for the tutorials. Summative assessment occurred through five multiple choice tests scheduled throughout the semester, along with a final case study report aimed at demonstrating ability to analyse and synthesise pathophysiological knowledge applied to the clinical setting.

The redesign of the subject followed analysis of narrative evaluations from a small number of previous students and the development of a learning matrix to organise expected learning outcomes, content and resources into the eight sections. Despite this initial planning, some student objections to the new arrangements became apparent during the first offering. A decision was then made to explore the responses to the subject and to seek feedback to inform future offerings. Factors possibly contributing to the adverse response included resistance to self-directed learning by emergency and intensive care (ICU) nurses, and the fact that the changes to the teaching arrangements were made without preparing incoming students. Computer access and literacy were also seen as problematic for some students, and resistance to the online component was exacerbated by the late availability of some of the sets of questions due to the start-up workload.

Evaluation arrangements

A one hour student focus group was then arranged to explore issues raised in the survey. Eight students participated, representing metropolitan and rural students and each stream of the subject except perioperative nursing (intensive care, anaesthesia, cardiac care, emergency and critical care). The focus of the session was 'How can this subject be improved for flexible learning?' Following this a one hour interview with the same focus was conducted with the lecturer.

Responses from all evaluation components were analysed and a report prepared. Given the attitudinal focus of the evaluation and its emphasis on student-centredness and context-specific information, a high value was placed on qualitative feedback.. However, some frequencies are provided in the results below to indicate the extent of the perceptions concerned.

Evaluation results

The student survey

Eleven of the 14 negative responses (78.6%) were from emergency and ICU nurses, thus confirming that there was a high level of concern by these groups (which comprised 55 percent of the total surveyed enrolment). It was also noted that while nearly nine in ten students (88.3%) identified themselves as diplomates or graduates, many had limited nursing and specialty experience: 60.8 percent had between one and five years' nursing experience but nearly a third of the whole group (31.3%) had less than a year's specialty experience and some of these students had none. A further 56.9 percent had one to five years' specialty experience so, in total, 88.2 percent had five years' specialty experience or less, suggesting that this may also have been a major factor influencing the responses.

The most common reasons for enrolment were to seek improvement of knowledge or education, nursing practice or employment opportunities. Over half of the respondents (54.9%) worked in an environment positive about postgraduate learning, sometimes particularly so ('The staff are fantastic, all are willing to help me learn. And our educator is always there for us.'), with others in a workplace mostly, or to some extent, positive. However, one in ten (11.8%) were in an environment critical of this particular course. A high level of support for undertaking the course was available from colleagues to about half the students (51.0%), and from family to about six in ten (60.8%). Nearly a third (31.4%) reported a medium level of support from both, but more students reported a low level of support from colleagues (15.7%), than from family (5.9%).

On the central issue of whether students perceived that learning was deeper when they took control of it themselves, over a third (35.3%) agreed, with a further 47.1 percent agreeing to some extent, resulting in some level of agreement from 82.4 percent. Comments from those who unconditionally agreed included:

Definitely true - compared to undergraduate study I have learnt and understood and remembered this current info much more than undergraduate information.

Adult learning, you have it in your hands.

INCORRECT - students should be given the option - so much wasted time in looking for information. Therefore no time to actually study and learn it - very frustrating.

This is an excuss (sic) for teachers to cop out and not have any responsibility for student learning.

The ability to pace learning and combine it with other life responsibilities, followed by the advantages for learning itself, were the main reasons given by those who were positive about flexible learning. Students who were initially neutral were unsure of what to expect, or felt that some teaching was necessary. After the event, the strongest single concern by those who were neutral was the perceived need for more teaching or guidance. The need for more support, guidance and interaction also strongly influenced those who were negative, both before and after the experience, though some comments after studying the subject also related to problems with tutorials, assessment and workload.

A range of suggestions was made to help prepare future students for flexible learning. Organisation and self-reliance were among the three most frequently mentioned requirements, though the importance of Internet/email access was also prominent, reflecting difficulties faced by students who did not have access at home and considered arrangements on campus inadequate. There was also advice to avoid this particular course. Some comments emphasised the importance of completing the specified pre-reading, and of having a positive attitude.

Quantifiable responses to specific aspects of the subject were requested. The most positive responses (indicated by combining the scores for agreement and strong agreement) related to the assistance of: the case study report in increasing knowledge of the patient's condition (94.1% of respondents); the subject guide in explaining how the concepts in the subject were organised (84.3%); and the multiple choice tests in providing for effective study (80.4%). The most negative aspects were ease of finding patients relevant to the subject content (35.3%) and usefulness of the feedback on the online self-assessment (43.1%). (The online feedback indicated correct and incorrect responses but gave no explanation.) Other statements gaining agreement from less than 50 percent of the respondents related to the helpfulness of the tutorials in clarifying content and ease of access to the online self-assessment (both 45.1%).

Most students (86.2%) made contact with the lecturer only occasionally or seldom. Over three quarters (77.1%) were satisfied with the assistance provided, with a further 4.2 percent considering that they received the assistance required sometimes. The remainder (18.8%) considered that they did not receive the assistance they needed.

The suggested time allocation for each fortnightly section ranged between 10 and 16 hours. Just over half the students (54.9%) indicated that they spent up to 20 hours per section while the remainder (excluding one non-respondent) stated that they spent considerably more than the allocated time.

Students were asked to suggest improvements to the main subject components but on most items more than half of them made no comment. The online self-assessment questions gained more comment than any other subject component, with nearly six students in ten responding. There were some clear indications for improvement, though they represent minority opinions. In particular, the need to have questions online earlier was emphasised, as well as the need to enhance feedback by providing explanation in relation to incorrect answers. (The former point can be related to concerns about Internet access and equity issues since late availability particularly penalised those who did not have access at home.)

The number of comments about tutorials was almost as large as the number on online self-assessment, indicating that this, too, may be an important area to review. References to poor scheduling and to deficiencies in teaching, thoroughness and time were made by several students. Comments included:

Good variety. Too crammed if expect to go over answers and case studies: perhaps written format for this.

Very inadequate - trite, superficial, rushed, compressed and too much covered inadequately in too short a time.

Comments on the most positive aspects of the subject related to: increased learning about pathophysiology; various subject components; the lecturer; application of theory to practice; self-direction; interest; and personal achievement. For example:

I have a totally different viewpoint of the human body now. Am amazed at reading 'heavy' textbooks & know what they mean - more or less. Even appreciate nature & animal kingdom greater since this fantastic study which I did thoroughly enjoy (believe it or not).

Very easy to access the lecturer and she was always very helpful and approachable.

Finishing it. I feel proud of myself for all the work I did to finish this subject.

At the end of the day - I have still learnt something - but the means by which I go here are not necessarily acceptable. If I had wanted to as 'flexible' which I believe is another word for distance education I would have done a correspondence course which would have been less expensive in both time & money (sic).

I would like to see the subject conducted over a longer time in order to fully digest the material. It was too crammed in.

Content is quite extensive for time frame given. Extend subject time or decrease workload/content.

I feel there needs to be more of a balance between flexible learning & tutorials. We ended up using staff from the hospital to help with further lectures.

If this is the 'way of the future' - need to have better access to tutorials.

The importance of experience and maturity was also highlighted. One student considered that successfully handling the subject depended on

... experience and the way you manage it. It's maturity too although what it maybe boils down to is study skills... a lot of people don't cope very well on their own and they don't cope by having to work out what they have to do...'

As in the survey, the assessable case study report was regarded positively, while problems relating to the online self-assessment were reiterated. Computer access and literacy were also seen as major problems for some:

... the bottom line is... why should I have to buy a computer... for the people who haven't got a computer and haven't got computer literacy, that is a big jump, and a very expensive jump, to expect them to take.

...frantically trying to get all the materials together ...I was feeling extremely positive and thought that it would be something that they would really run with so then when ... after about a month in I realised that they weren't quite as receptive to it as ... I originally would have expected ... my expectations of how they would cope with it changed ... It seemed to me that they were finding it difficult to be self-directed. Accommodating the needs of the emergency and ICU nurses was seen as difficult and it was noted that there was some irony in the fact that autonomy in the workplace, did not appear to transfer to a desire for autonomy in learning:

... you're dealing with a group of people that are traditionally very ... strong personalities ... in their work environment [they are] very autonomous and they have a lot of say in the way things are run and the way patients are cared for ...

Discussion and conclusion

Student concerns about workload, guidance and organisation of the tutorials were clearly exacerbated by the high level of content. Garrison, Andrews and Magnusson (1995) discuss how, in the context of preoccupation with assessment and grades:

an exclusive focus on content often creates an excessive workload ... [and] without time for reflecting upon and processing content in a deep and meaningful manner, students will have little choice but to take a surface approach.

In this case study, it appeared that some concerns about flexible learning may well have been related to students' learning approaches and plans were made to study this factor more closely in the next offering of the subject. Issues of maturity, time and student support also require closer consideration. Clarke and James (1997) refer to problems in encouraging self-direction in post-registration nurse education and the related conflict between issues of automomy and dependency. These also appear to need further examination in the context considered here. The importance of student support for distance post-registration nursing students was identified by Chapman (2000) in a UK qualitative study. This requirement is strongly supported by the responses in this study, despite student access to on-campus assistance. The issue of metropolitan/rural location is a further aspect which may warrant closer examination.

Whatever the causes of resistance, both the pedagogical benefits of self-direction, and its importance in the rapidly changing university environment, suggest that student perceptions and attitudes should not be overlooked whenever more flexible learning opportunities are introduced. As long as resistance remains, it will be accompanied by the paradoxical situation of attempting to impose on students from the outside an approach which must necessarily come from within. Is it therefore possible to resolve this paradox when the contributing factors are not fully explored and when the solutions, as discussed previously, must remain context-specific? The conclusion from this case study was that there are some clear general steps which can be undertaken. When these are applied to individual situations they become context-specific, and provide the capacity to reduce resistance even if its causes are not fully known.

At the heart of the matter is preparing students when an innovation is planned, and providing high levels of guidance and support, together with ongoing opportunities for dialogue to allow both expression and monitoring of perceptions. A learning environment which encourages communication, reflection and openness to change is also likely to improve the quality of learning itself. Flexibility presents a challenge to the perceptions and transactions of the learning experience, involving renegotiation of the student-teacher relationship, and placing greater emphasis on two-way communication and teacher availability. If it is possible for students to become comfortable with and committed to arrangements that are genuinely planned to benefit them, then the notion of imposition disappears and, along with it, the paradox. The process appears to closely parallel the movement from a surface to a deep approach to learning.

The following steps, which might be transferable to other situations, were taken as a result of this evaluation:

• providing an orientation to student-centred flexible learning (in 2000 students were introduced to flexible and online learning issues in the first tutorial; the printed study material also included a section on 'studying flexibly' to provide guidance about the associated expectations);
• refining organisation to maximise guidance and support (tutorials were offered at the beginning of each section of study, rather than at the end, thus enhancing access to content and reducing the sense of struggling in isolation);
• increasing opportunities for interactivity and dialogue (online discussion groups were introduced for explanation and analysis of clinical cases); and
• reducing workload (one section was removed from the subject).

References

Candy, P.C. (1991). Self-direction for lifelong learning: A comprehensive guide to theory and practice. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Cantwell, R.H. (1997). Cognitive dispositions and student nurses' appraisals of their learning environment. Issues in Educational Research, 7(1), 19-36. http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/iier7/cantwell.html

Chapman, L. (2000). Distance learning for postregistered nursing: the facts. Nursing Standard, 14(18), 33-36.

Clarke, B. and James, C. (1997). The purpose of flexible learning in post-registration nurse education. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 1243-1251.

Dewey, J. (1972). Experience and education. (Originally published in 1938 by Kappa Delta Pi). Collier Books: New York.

Garrison, D.R., Andrews, J. and Magnusson, K. (1995). Approaches to teaching and learning in higher education. New Currents, 2(1). [verified 22 Sep 2001] http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/Newsletters/Currents/Vol2.1/approaches.html

Gruber, H.E. and and Weitman, M. (1962). Self-directed study: experiments in higher education. Behavior Research Laboratory Report No.19. University of Colorado: Boulder.

Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models, Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.

Knowles, M.S. (1984). The adult learner: A neglected species, 3rd edition. Gulf Publishing: Houston.

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking university teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. Routledge: London.

Laurillard, D & Margetson, D. (1997). Introducing a flexible learning methodology: Discussion paper. Occasional Paper No. 7. GIHE, Griffith University: Queensland.

Marton, F. & Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning I: outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.

Monash University (1999). Leading the way: Monash 2020. Monash University: Melbourne.

Ramsden, P. (1997). The context of learning in academic departments. In F. Marton, D. Hounsell and N Entwistle (Eds), The experience of learning: Implications for teaching and studying in higher education, 2nd edition. Scottish Academic Press: Edinburgh.

Authors: Robyn Benson, Monash University Phone (03) 9905 3270 Fax (03) 9905 3278 Email Robyn.Benson@CeLTS.monash.edu.au Debra Kiegaldie, Monash University Phone (03) 9594 1380 Fax (03) 9594 2338 Email Debra.Kiegaldie@med.monash.edu.au Please cite as: Benson, R. and Kiegaldie, D. (2001). Becoming flexible: Resolving the paradox of teacher-directed student-centred learning. In L. Richardson and J. Lidstone (Eds), Flexible Learning for a Flexible Society, 59-68. Proceedings of ASET-HERDSA 2000 Conference, Toowoomba, Qld, 2-5 July 2000. ASET and HERDSA. http://www.aset.org.au/confs/aset-herdsa2000/procs/benson.html