A meta-analysis of flexible delivery policies in selected Australian tertiary institutions: How flexible is flexible delivery?

A lure, and often justified as a reason for the use of flexible delivery strategies that incorporate the new learning technologies for course presentation, is that it can help make the concept of a learning community a reality in future years. However, the adoption of flexible delivery only too often has its genesis in the belief that it can be used primarily as a tool for greater cost efficiency when compared to traditional learning environments. In this context the use of flexible delivery can address institutional concerns of ever decreasing funding support from Government and the increasing public demand for education and training opportunities.

The definitions of "flexible delivery" used in the literature are very diverse and differ widely across the education and training sector. What does appear to be common is the sense of choice associated with flexibility. However, in spite of their stated intention in institutional documentation and literature, it appears that many flexible approaches are indeed less than flexible and offer limited choice to the student. Furthermore, it seems that the emphasis is in fact more on flexible teaching than on flexible learning and that the elements of "choice" relate more to institutional needs that student needs. There is an indication that the broad scale adoption of true flexible delivery in the tertiary sector is still some way off. Research in the use of flexible delivery suggests that for it to succeed requires a high level of interactivity to be built into the course. High levels of interactivity generally require high costs irrespective of whether face to face strategies or IT are used.

This paper concerns the meta-analysis of data from selected institutions regarding their flexible learning policies and/or strategic plans to determine the extent to which these policies encouraged true flexibility in flexible delivery. Also examined will be the distinctions institutions make, if at all, between the terms flexible delivery and flexible learning.

A number of interesting trends and commonalties emerged from the analysis of institutional data. Purpose built flexible delivery campuses, retail campuses, the use of online learning and the adoption of particular technologies and the use of fast track courses are all examples of the use of flexible delivery. However, the majority of institutions have tended to adopt rather rigid approaches to flexible delivery that have been attuned to accommodating approaches to flexible teaching rather than accommodating flexible learning that meets the needs and requirements of the learner. For example, institutions that are building flexible delivery campuses tend to use face to face delivery as an integral part of the "flexible delivery" model and in the majority of cases students are required to attend the campuses, an approach which is very limited in flexibility. The implications of the findings are discussed in the paper.