Flexibility as a Key Construct in European Training: Experiences from the TeleScopia Project

Abstract

Increasing the options available to the learner as to when, how, where, with what materials, and what he or she learns is becoming increasingly important, not only for personal and educational reasons but also for economic motivations. Increasing the flexibility of training for persons already in the work force is seen as particularly appropriate, and telematics applications are expected to have particular value in facilitating more-flexible course delivery in training and workplace contexts. In this analysis we consider the concept "flexibility of training" in more detail, decomposing it into a series of, sometimes incompatible, dimensions and presenting some propositions as to likelihood of the different flexibility dimensions becoming implemented in practice. The study of flexibility relative to trans-national tele-learning is illustrated through its central role in the research component of the TeleScopia Project, sponsored by the Commission of the European Community. Introduction: toward more-flexible training and educationAlthough interest in "open and flexible learning" is by no means a new phenomenon, there are a number of new impulses stimulating a renewed cycle of interest. As an example, the concept of workplace-based, "just-in-time learning, when and where you need it" (Arnett, 1993) is being called a "paradigm shift for the Year 2000" by a major international corporation which is turning toward the concept as its standard in-house training model. Just-in-time learning, as a form of flexible training, is seen as access to integrated learning materials, information banks, communication channels, and tools, so that the learner, at his desktop and with varying degrees of coaching, can call up an appropriate amount, content and type of learning material when it is necessary and useful for his or her work performance (Barker and Banerji, 1993). The appropriate amount may be a full course or a short module; the appropriate content may be partly or completely determined by the learner; and the appropriate type of learning material may be the learner's choice of a simulation program, a tutorial program, a book

The relationship between flexible and self-regulated learning in open and distance universities

“…Among these, we identify the provision of choice as a key element of flexible learning (Collis & Moonen, 2001;Jochems et al, 2004). Collis, Vingerhoets, and Moonen (1997) provided one of the widely adopted flexible learning concepts in ODL. According to them, we should regard categories of flexible learning as grouped dimensions in order to study the flexible attributes of learning activities in comparison to those that are fixed.…”

“…The dimensions themselves constitute subscales of the categories. Collis et al (1997) grouped 19 dimensions of flexibility into five categories: (1) time, (2) content, (3) entry requirements, (4) instructional approach and resources, and (5) what, when, and how they want to learn. This simple comparison shows the diversity of flexibility concepts researchers have already developed.…”

“…Space (Goodyear, 2008;Ling et al, 2001) • Delocalization (Collis et al, 1997;Ling et al, 2001) • Learning place…”

“…Organization and infrastructure (Arbaugh, 2000;Collis et al, 1997;Hart, 2000) • Combination of study, work, family…”

“…• Logistics of learning material Requirements (Collis et al, 1997;Hart, 2000;Ling et al, 2001) • Entry requirements (1975, p. 18). With this definition, Knowles clearly regarded SRL as a complex learning process that makes high demands on students for choices (Boekaerts, 1997;Winne & Perry, 2000).…”