Flexible Assessment

Flexible learning is now well entrenched in the policy, curriculum, and course delivery frameworks of many higher education sectors in the Western world. However, because of the ambiguous nature of the terms, teachers are often faced with ill-defined expectations from their institution to ‘be flexible’—to make choices about where, when, and how they will offer the various elements of their curriculum. The negotiable meanings of flexibility cluster around the divergent perspectives of a range of stakeholders, including pedagogists, managers, and technologists. Teachers are often unsure of the motives behind the push towards flexible learning: Are they being asked to save money by putting their courses online and reducing their face to face teaching? Are they being asked to better meet the needs of 21st century students and therefore increase enrolments? Is it about improving student learning by refocusing on student-centred learning and lifelong learning? Is it about harnessing the educational potential of new technologies? Tucked within this confusing area of higher education sits flexible assessment—a relatively neglected theme in the flexible learning story.

Ethical Issues in Web-Based Learning

If you were to survey course syllabi on your campus, you would probably find the standard syllabi to include: • Course title and number • Instructor’s name and contact information • Course objectives • A list of required and recommended readings/materials • A detailed outline of the topics for consideration • Detailed descriptions of assignments and due dates • Percentage of final grade • A schedule of topics by date You would also find a campus curriculum or departmental committee that initially approves such courses. Once the course is approved, it is not usually subject to review or scrutiny by the campus, unless the department requests a course change.

We'll Leave the Light on for You

Motivating online learners is a key challenge facing instructors in both higher education and corporate settings. Attrition rates and low participation levels in course activities are frequent instructor complaints about online learning environments. Part of the problem is a lack of sophistication in online tools and courseware (Bonk & Dennen, 1999). Added to this problem is that, even when tools exist for engaging and motivating students, instructors lack training in how to effectively use them. Instructors not only need to know the types of online and collaborative tools for engaging students, but also how to embed effective pedagogy when the technologies are weak.

Modes of Openness and Flexibility in Cognitive Flexibility Hypertext Learning Environments

The words openness and flexibility—the latter is the topic of this volume—are joined in the title of this chapter. We see them as two sides of the same coin—structure and process, as well as antecedent and consequent. Closed structures of presentation (how instructional materials are organized in delivery systems) and of representation (how knowledge is structured and operated upon in the mind) produce rigidity of thought and action. The antithesis of this rigidity is a kind of “openness-based” flexibility necessary for adaptive knowledge application, for transfer of knowledge to new situations, for situation-sensitive use of knowledge, and for the kind of world-fitting complexity of understanding that cognitive flexibility depends upon—and that the increasingly complex modern world of life and work needs now more than ever. Rigidity and oversimplification are rampant in learning and teaching (e.g., Feltovich, Coulson, & Spiro, 2001; Feltovich, Spiro, & Coulson, 1989, 1996; Spiro, Feltovich, & Coulson, 1996), but with the affordances of new media, we do not need to live complacently with this state of affairs (Spiro, in press). The perspective of cognitive flexibility theory (CFT; Mishra, Spiro, & Feltovich, 1996; Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson, 1988, 2004; Spiro, Feltovich, Jacobson, & Coulson, 1992a, 1992b; Spiro & Jehng, 1990) enacts openness in many ways—in the theory itself and in the multimedia learning systems based on the theory (cognitive flexibility hypertext learning environments, CFHs). A recent overview of CFT can be found in Spiro, Collins, and Thota (2003).

Evaluating Flexible Learning in Terms of Course Quality

Learning becomes more flexible when options are offered to learners, not only about the time and place and pace of learning, but also relating to types and origins of study materials, to forms and quantity of learning activities and assignments, to ways of interacting with others within the course, and to forms of assessment. De Boer (2004) has analyzed flexible course delivery within universities and found that the most flexibility is found in logistic aspects of the course such as flexibility in dates by which assignments must be submitted or flexibility in the location of course meetings, whereas pedagogical flexibility in which the learner can tailor aspects of the learning process itself is still relatively little seen. Within companies, flexible learning is often described as e-learning or blended learning. In an analysis of literature about flexible learning in companies, Margaryan and Bianco (2002) found that e-learning typically involves logistic flexibility at the price of pedagogy: little or no options are available for social interaction, a direct relationship with an instructor, or for choice in types of learning activities and ways of carrying out those activities.

Evaluation Strategies for Open and Distributed Learning Environments

Evaluation falls into the category of those often neglected human practices such as exercise and eating right. All of us involved in education or training know that we should engage in systematic evaluation when designing or implementing any type of learning environment, but we rarely get around to it. Perhaps this lapse stems from the fact that most instructional design models such as the ubiquitous ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model (Molenda, 2003) appear to suggest that we can postpone evaluation until the end of the process. Whatever the reason, evaluation often remains in the realm of promises made, but not kept, such as “I’ll eat better tomorrow.”

Integrating Multimedia Cues in E-Learning Documents for Enhanced Learning

The digitization of educational content is radically transforming the learning environment of the student. A single lecture, as well as supporting reference material, textbook chapters, simulations, and threaded chat system archives, may be captured on one hour of video, a set of 20 or more slides, and ancillary text resources. A single course may contain 25 such lectures and a single department may have 30 distinct courses that have been digitized in a single year. If, while taking one course, a student wants to find a relevant definition, example, discussion, or illustration of a concept, then the student would potentially need to search as much as 750 hours of video, 15,000 slides, and a huge volume of text in order to find the desired information. Thus the online student is overwhelmed by a flood of multimedia data which inhibits the development of insight.

Storytelling as a Web-Based Workplace Learning Pedagogy

This chapter describes the evolution of storytelling in the workplace—from a face-to-face learning pedagogy to the use of storytelling as a Web-based learning pedagogy. The chapter is organized around an improvised version of Koppett’s (2001, p. 71) “story spine.” The story spine is a tool that Koppett offers to aid people in building stories. Simply, the structure is: (1) “once upon a time,” (2) “then one day,” (3) “and so,” and (4) “and in the end.” In this chapter, the story spine structure will help explain or describe the story of storytelling as a Web-based learning pedagogy, as well as aid in the description of its evolution. In addition, this chapter will ask “and so?”—or, what is the significance of this emergent phenomenon of storytelling as a Web-based learning pedagogy?

Designing Community Learning in Web-Based Environments

Current learning theory suggests that collaboration is a key to effective learning. Perhaps it is no coincidence that collaborative online tools have appeared as social theories of learning have become more widely accepted. Programs that embody the more traditional and linear teaching methods are slowly yielding to collaborative tools that more appropriately support our new understanding of social learning. As our tools become more powerful and sophisticated, so too will our ability to think and learn with them.

Assessing Online Collaborative Learning

This chapter considers the unique opportunities for assessing online collaborative learning (OCL) in both formal (primary, secondary, and tertiary) and non-formal (workplace) education contexts. The chapter provides a theoretical framework, a methodology, and a set of tools for understanding and assessing online collaborative learning and conceptual change. Online collaborative learning (OCL), it is argued, provides hitherto unprecedented qualities for implementing, supporting, and assessing individual and group intellectual progress. The chapter focuses especially on the unique opportunities whereby instructors, educators, researchers, and students can analyze and assess learning (conceptual change) in OCL environments and applications: that is, online discussion that progresses from divergent (brainstorming) to convergent (conclusive statements) in such educational activities as group seminars, discussions, debates, case analyses, and/or team projects. Examples of OCL applications, such as the design of online student-led seminars, and ways to assess student moderators and student discussants, are included.