LOL –Limitations of Online Learning – are we selling the open and

distance education message short?

Barrie Todhunter
Barrie Todhunter <Barrie.Todhunter@usq.edu.au>

Faculty of Business and Law, University of Southern Queensland, Australia

The thesis of this paper is that the open and distance education sector is based on a
framework of terminology that is typologically inconsistent and which lacks clarity,
and open and distance education teaching and learning models are examined to explore
these concerns. The findings of this analysis are then used to assist in the articulation of
a strategic direction for a regional dual-mode Australian university and to identify
appropriate branding for its off-campus model of education. Concerns are raised as to
the appropriateness of an “online” message to prospective students given possible
adverse perceptions of a learning environment that may not align with the needs and
expectations of distance learners.

Keywords: distance education, blended learning, online education, open learning,

flexible learning.

1
Introduction
The thesis of this paper is that the open and distance education sector embraces a

framework of terminology that is typologically inconsistent with actual offerings and lacking

clarity for stakeholders. Initially the paper examines the historical context of off-campus

education and how terminology related to distance education has evolved. The nomenclature

and typology of tertiary learning environments are explored as well as the diversity of

definitions of learning environments and study modes offered by higher education

institutions. The development of learning environments is explored, including their

convergence over recent years due to technology and the economics of off-campus education.

The author then examines how those issues are impacting on the deliberations at a regional

university (the University) in terms of its future strategic direction, particularly with regard to

a proposal to use “online” as an all-embracing term for all off-campus teaching and learning.

The University context

The author coordinates a postgraduate master’s program for domestic and

international students at a regional Australian university which has offered on-campus and

off-campus (dual mode) education for domestic and international students for more than 30

years, a product of the Dawkins era which fostered the development of distance education

centres (Dawkins, 1988). Since that time, off-campus enrolments have grown to

approximately 20,000 students which represent about 80 per cent of total enrolments.

The University has moved through various generations of distance education

consistent with those described by Taylor (2001): correspondence, multimedia, telelearning

and flexible learning. The University collaborated with a private technology company at the

turn of the century to make many of its academic programs available “online” (postgraduate

in particular). Remnants of all of the generational models remain, including printed study

2
materials (which are progressively being phased out), selected readings of journal articles

(which were provided to reduce the dependency of students on physical resources from the

library), and CD-ROMs (which were introduced to minimise the problems and costs

associated with access to the internet for students in remote locations).

The University has won international awards for open and distance education as a

“dual mode” university (http://www.usq.edu.au/lrds/aboutlrds/award) and the official modes

of study in which students can enrol comprise on-campus (ONC), external (EXT) and online

(WEB). Students can and do move across all three modes freely within programs and from

semester to semester, thereby blurring the distinction between on-campus and off-campus

modes of study.

The on-campus mode (ONC) of study has different variations across faculties each

with different patterns of contact times, assessment and learning resources. Off-campus

education comprises traditional correspondence (EXT) and web-based models (WEB) with

different levels of fees, support and resources for each mode of enrolment. In its current

marketing materials the University now promotes only the alternatives of “on-campus” and

“online” modes of study (http://www.usq.edu.au/), and it equates “online” and “distance

education”: “Online - We have 40 years (sic) experience in delivering internationally

awarded distance education” (http://www.usq.edu.au/). However, in other instances it

suggests that online and distance education is different: “USQ is Queensland’s number one

University for online & distance education” (http://www.usq.edu.au/future-

students/transcripts/what-is-online-study).

These examples may seem minor, but underlying these conflicts is a more

fundamental concern as to how the language of off-campus teaching and learning has evolved

over the last 140 years (Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 429), and how it is inconsistently used.

3
 External and web-based modes at the University have now almost converged into a

single model that is offered in multiple formats across faculties and academic programs. On-

campus and off-campus students share access to the same online resources and discussion

forums as well as assessment activities, making distinctions between modes of study

increasingly difficult to define and to explain to students, and academic and professional staff

struggle with both administrative and pedagogical aspects of the enrolment modes.

The problem
The University has released a new strategic plan (Thomas, 2012) to determine its

future direction within a competitive higher education market place. As part of the new

strategic plan, the University is moving away from its use of “distance education” in its

marketing and promotional activities in favour of “online” education” as the generic term for

all off-campus education.

A re-branding of the institution as an “online university” has been proposed as the

preferred image for off-campus teaching and learning. However, concerns have been raised

about an adverse interpretation by staff and students of a central theme of “online” education”

which may suggest to prospective students that the only alternative to studying on-campus is

to undertake “online” study. This may represent a deterrent to students who are cautious

about undertaking studies in a mode where they do not see “a match between their preferred

learning style and their study mode” (Hagel & Shaw, 2006, p. 288), and which may not be

well supported putting them at risk of reduced learning outcomes and even possibly failure.

Educational institutions can expect a more favourable attitude towards a mode of study where

students ”perceive a compatibility with their situation and goals, where they value the

learning experiences they are offered, and where they recognise the availability of a sensitive,

proficient and accessible student support ”process”” (C. K. Morgan & Tam, 1999, p. 106).

4
 Although Beattie and James (1997) proposed a framework for evaluating three

common study modes in Australian postgraduate studies which distinguished between

“several modes on potential flexibility in time and place, potential interactivity, and the

teacher’s role” (Hagel & Shaw, 2006, p. 285), Hagel and Shaw (2006, p. 285) indicated that

”few studies have investigated the dimensions on which students evaluate study modes” and

reported that “students distinguished between study modes on two broad categories of

benefits: engagement and functionality” (p. 297). While the University has over thirty years

of experience in providing quality distance education (http://www.usq.edu.au/about-

usq/about-us/history), research by Howland and Moore (2002, p. 191) revealed early

perceptions of students who had “serious doubts about the quality of learning that could be

carried out over the Internet in comparison to face-to-face environments”. The growth of e-

Learning has blurred the boundaries of educational modes (Forsyth, Pizzica, Laxton, &

Mahony, 2010), and a review of the literature suggests that the distance education sector

lacks clarity in its language and lacks precision in its typology of teaching and learning

environments (Schlosser & Simonson, 2009).

Typology of learning environments and enrolment modes

The three modes of enrolment at the University have been indicated above as “on-

campus”, “external” and “web”. Australian higher education institutions and academics use a

wide range of terms to describe ways in which students may engage with their studies,

including on-campus, face-to-face, off-campus, open education, distance education, external

study, online education, e-Learning, flexible learning, blended learning and hybrid. The

literature suggests that there is limited consensus on the definitions and understanding of

these terms (Lund & Volet, 1998; Schlosser & Simonson, 2009), and that this has created a

degree of confusion for academics, administrators and students, especially within the

University.

5
 For each learning environment listed above, there are distinct attributes that help to

locate and define them in a typological structure. For example, an on-campus mode relates to

“courses that deliver material face-to-face and students interact with instructors face-to-face”

(Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 142). As the use of technology rapidly increases in education

(Schlosser & Simonson, 2009), the boundaries of what learning environment fits within a

mode of enrolment become less clear, and aspects of the respective teaching and learning

environments are examined in detail below. Consequently the focus of this paper is on the

examination of the nomenclature and typology of teaching and learning environments and

enrolment modes in higher education institutions and the consequential impact that this may

have on the expectations and obligations of staff and students.

The importance of typologies is that they “go beyond the problem of order and help to

show the importance of particular factors” and are considered ”a system of groupings…the

members of which are identified by postulating specified attributes that are mutually

exclusive and collectively exhaustive” (Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013). Within the

typology, each type may represent “one kind of attribute or several and need include only

those features that are significant for the problem at hand” (Encyclopædia Britannica Inc.,

2013). Overall, the typology “elicits a particular order depending on the purposes of the

investigator and on the phenomena so arranged” (Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2013).

A brief analysis is provided in the following sections of each of the learning

environments listed below, and indicative definitions are provided to illustrate the lack of

clarity and consistency:

 On-campus/face-to-face
 Off-campus/distance education/learning at a distance
 E-learning/computer-based learning
 Online/networked learning/distributed learning/web-based learning
 Blended learning/block intensive/hybrid

6
  Flexible learning
 Open learning

On-campus/face-to-face teaching and learning

Traditional face-to-face courses are “courses that deliver material face-to-face” and

where “students interact with instructors face-to-face” (Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 142).

Surprisingly, few research studies have investigated “the functional benefits students

experience when studying face-to-face in the conventional classroom” (Hagel & Shaw, 2006,

p. 286).

Students who select an “on-campus” mode of study at universities within Australia

may or may not attend scheduled classes, as rarely is attendance or participation compulsory,

nor even recorded. Even if attendance is mandatory, students may not participate nor engage

with the activities in the course, and achievement of learning outcomes may be limited. Hagel

and Shaw (2006, p. 286) indicate that lectures increase “the efficiency with which students

could cover the required learning material”, and that this is “of particular importance to

international students”

Students may participate in unsupervised study groups, read independently, do

learning tasks that are not set by the lecturer, write assignments, research in the library,

research online or do online quizzes. They may be on-campus but they may not be in class.

As these activities can take place outside the classroom, on-campus students may actually

engage in limited face-to-face learning activities on campus. What then really differentiates

an on-campus learning environment from an off-campus one? Is it a question of the degree of

attendance?

Off-campus/distance education/learning at a distance

An “antonym” is defined as “a word opposite in meaning to another”

(http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/antonym?q=antonym). The antonym to “on-

7
campus” is “off-campus”, a category of learning environment which embraces many forms of

distance learning. Distance education has a long history going back around 180 years

(Schlosser & Simonson, 2009) when the opportunity to study “Composition through the

medium of the Post” was advertised in 1833 in Sweden. Schlosser and Simonson (2009)

provide a detailed history of how learning at a distance developed rapidly across Europe and

the United States. Distance education using correspondence models began in Australia early

in the twentieth century to address the needs of rural families but did not reach a significant

scale at tertiary level until much later in the century (Erdos, 1986). Although distance

education in universities is generally perceived as a recent phenomenon in Australia, it was

being offered in 1911 by the University of Queensland (Roberts, 2000). The Royal

Melbourne Institute of Technology commenced distance education for returning servicemen

after the First World War, and distance education was increasingly offered by other

universities during the period up to the 1970s. The University of New England initiated the

model that is now commonplace throughout Australia, whereby lecturers taught both on-

campus and distance students and both cohorts received the same qualification (Erdos, 1986).

While distance education itself is well-established, the definitions of the mode are

numerous and include:

 the quasi-permanent separation of teacher and learner; the influence of an

educational organisation in the planning, development and distribution of learning

materials and student support services; the use of technical media; the provision of

two-way communication to allow students to participate in and instigate dialogue;

and the quasi-permanent absence of other students so that learning takes place as

individuals and not in groups (Keegan, 1996, p. 50);

 institution-based, formal education where the learning group is separated, and

where interactive telecommunications systems are used to connect learners,

8
 resources, and instructors (Simonson, Smaldino, Albright, & Zvacek 2006, cited

in Schlosser & Simonson, 2009, p. 1);

 instruction in which students are separated from…instructors during the entire

course of study (Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 142);

 the various forms of study at all levels which are not under the continuous,

immediate supervision of tutors present with their students in lecture rooms or on

the same premises but which, nevertheless, benefit from the planning, guidance,

and teaching of a supporting organization (Holmberg, cited in Schlosser &

Simonson, 2009, p. 4).

From another perspective, the evolution of distance education is commonly related to

the generations of technology that are utilised, ranging from postal correspondence to mass

media of television, to radio and film production, to interactive technologies, and to flexible

learning and intelligent databases (T. Anderson & Dron, 2010, p. 81). The University finds

that the costs of providing physical resources such as print and even digital media on disk are

significant and make it difficult to compete with educational institutions “which are new to

distance education and do not yet bear the full costs of sophisticated infrastructure to deliver

quality teaching at a distance” (Higgins & Harreveld, 2011; Lockee, Perkins, Potter, Burton,

& Kreb, 2011). Those costs have encouraged the University to discontinue providing physical

learning resources to off-campus students, thereby removing any perceived difference

between students enrolling externally or via web mode.

The use of the terms off-campus or distance education implies that the experience of a

student who is learning off-campus will be different to those of a student who is studying on-

campus. On-campus students can quickly form groups in class, in the corridor, or at off-

campus locations to discuss topics related to their learning. Informal social interaction is

important for creating spaces that encompass “social relationships, group cohesion, trust and

9
belonging” (Kreijns, Kirschner, & Jochems, 2002, p. 10). McLoughlin and Luca (2003, p.

880) note that “successful learning occurs when it is contextualised, social, conversational,

collaborative and reflective”. Body language, facial expressions and tone of voice can have

significant impact on the learning dynamics in classrooms and groups and on learning

experiences and outcomes. Impromptu activities can take place quickly and easily, which can

change the direction of a learning session. However, it is recognised at least from the public

rhetoric of universities, that this social experience can be replicated through the provision of

social networks.

Given this, from an administrative and logistical perspective, how different do the on-

campus and off-campus modes need to be in order for students to be formally enrolled in

different modes of study? Administrative issues including those relating to Commonwealth

reporting requirements and Centrelink eligibility for student allowances appear to influence

much of the decision-making on this issue, but given the blurring of modes, what exactly is

the tipping point at which a student is deemed to be engaged in distance education?

The implications can be quite significant as there are still jurisdictions where

qualifications from a distance education university are not recognised. AMIDEAST (2012)

engages in international education, training and development activities in the Middle East and

North Africa and advises that “despite the huge numbers of accredited distance programs and

research that has been done showing that they are often equal or superior in quality to

campus-based programs, ministries and other entities in some countries still do not recognize

even accredited degrees earned through distance methods”. Through Austrade, the Australian

Government warns that “distance education is a difficult area for international education

providers as the Ministry of Education does not recognise qualifications granted to Chinese

students by any foreign institution through distance education” (Austrade, 2012).

10
E-learning/computer-based learning
While initial observations of computer-based learning suggested that “e-learning is a

confused and confusing field, fragmented into multiple disciplines and emphases” (Lund &

Volet, (1998, p. 90), a general definition is provided by Pollard and Hillage who suggest e-

learning represents “the delivery and administration of learning opportunities and support via

computer, networked and web-based technology to help individual performance and

development” (Pollard & Hillage, 2001, n.p.). Although many writers refer to elearning,

online learning, and web-based learning interchangeably (Smart & Cappel, 2006, p. 202), e-

learning and computer-based learning can be seen as broader than online learning as they do

not always require web-based connectivity. The learning activities can take place on stand-

alone digital devices and that is an important differentiator, and they are more focused on the

actual learning activities taking place in a digital environment such as games, simulation and

training.

Online/networked learning/distributed learning/web-based learning

From a position as a recognised leader in a niche market, the University is now in a

situation where many other competing universities offer online programs with some devoted

solely to online degree programs (Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 141). At the same time,

traditional universities have also expanded their offerings to include online education; the

MIT Open Courseware being frequently cited (www.ocw.mit.edu).

Common usage suggests that online learning and e-learning are similar concepts but

the literature suggests otherwise. Online and web-based courses have been defined as

“courses that deliver material entirely online and students interact with instructors entirely

online” (Caruth & Caruth, 2013, p. 142). Natale (2011, p. 13) suggests that “the type of

instruction delivered in various online delivery models can vary from fully online

instruction…to face-to-face instruction, in which the teacher still delivers most of the

11
instruction”. Howland and Moore (2002, p. 186) suggest that an online course is defined as

“one in which no more than one face-to-face meeting is required” and that “the terms Internet

and online are used interchangeably”. In a slightly contrasting view, Bollinger and Wasilik

(2009, p. 103) report that a course can be considered an online course “if 80% or more of the

content is delivered via the Internet”.

According to Picciano (2006) there is no clear single pedagogy of online learning

although vendors of learning management systems such as Blackboard can be quite specific:

”online learning encompasses a range of technologies such as the world-

wide-web, email, chat, newsgroups, and text, audio and video conferencing

delivered over computer networks (local area networks, intranets or the

public Internet) to deliver education and training, both remotely and in the

classroom” (Backroad Connections Pty Ltd, 2005, p. 4).

However, the use of online learning to describe a mode of education is becoming less

common (KPMG Consulting Australia & LifeLong Learning Associates, 2002) and “pure

online learning has largely been replaced by a recognition of the benefits of hybrid or mixed

modes, combining online features with face to face interaction in various ways” (Backroad

Connections Pty Ltd, 2005, p. 5). The literature has not yet established whether online

education is “a subset of distance education or to be regarded as a separate field of

educational endeavor” (Schlosser & Simonson, 2009, p. 25). Online study cannot therefore be

defined by whether students are studying off-campus or on-campus. With the incorporation

of digital devices in almost all aspects of learning in the classroom or off-campus, all students

now engage in e-learning in some manner, however basic.

If the University chooses to adopt an online focus for its strategic and promotional

purposes, it should consider “how students perceive studying using online materials and the

12
barriers students face when studying online for the first time” (Lund & Volet, 1998, n.p.). It

is difficult for institutions and academics, let alone the students, to identify which online

learning environments lead to valuable learning outcomes and which don’t” (Lockee et al.,

2011) and there are empirical studies such as those by McLoughlin and Luca (2003) attesting

to negative learner experiences online such as feelings of anonymity and isolation.

Similarly, Muilenburg and Berge (2005) found that the key underlying constructs that

specifically represented student barriers and prompted adverse perceptions of online learning

were social interaction, technical skills, cost and access to the internet and technical

problems. The lack of social interaction was seen as the most severe barrier and is “strongly

related to online learning enjoyment, effectiveness of learning online, and the likelihood of

taking another online class” (Muilenburg & Berge, 2005, p. 45). Students” negative online

experiences will inevitably influence the way that they and others perceive the advantages

and disadvantages of this mode of study and how this may result in an increased risk of their

dropping out, reduced motivation or lower overall satisfaction with the learning experience

(Muilenburg & Berge, 2005).

A survey by the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities of public colleges

and universities in the United States found that “70 per cent of all faculty members believe

the learning outcomes of online courses to be either inferior or somewhat inferior, compared

with face-to-face instruction” (Parry, 2009, n.p.), while Jung and Latchem (2012) maintain

that quality assurance in open and distance learning remains a contentious issue. The

increasing trend to online education raises questions of equity for students from

disadvantaged cohorts, whether domestic or international, especially related to their ability to

gain appropriate online access. Another factor of concern to prospective online students is

recognition of their degrees locally and internationally. In the United States for example, the

federal government has “considered revising requirements that students wanting to qualify

13
for federal assistance can take no more than 50% of their course load online” (Caruth &

Caruth, 2013, p. 146).

Learning institutions that are new to off-campus teaching and learning have been

eager to suggest replacement of the term distance education with in-vogue terms such as

online education, distributed learning (Campbell & Bourne, 1997; Hitt & Hartman, 2002; Lea

& Nicoll, 2002), web-based education (Aggarwal, 2000; N. Anderson, 2000; Boulton, 2002),

and networked learning (Goodyear et al., 2001; Steeples & Jones, 2002). Lund and Volet

(1998, p. 89) suggest that the term distance education provides a positive description of a

learning environment that is independent of the communication medium and that “we must

resist the seduction of catchy labels and the temptation to mark our intellectual territory by

layering new jargon over the old”.

The best and the worst of online learning may be represented by the current trend

towards MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses), a term proposed in 2008 by George

Siemens and Stephen Downes (Rodriguez, 2013, p. 67). As indicated by Daniel (2012, n.p.),

“while the hype about MOOCs presaging a revolution in higher education has focussed on

their scale, the real revolution is that universities with scarcity at the heart of their business

models are embracing openness”. Although the power of MOOCs to provide access to

learning for thousands of students located anywhere in the world is impressive (Dodd, 2012),

they also raise questions about how the learning outcomes from a MOOC model can achieve

equivalence with those of on-campus and other forms of off-campus teaching and learning.

Flexible learning
The Australian National Training Authority defines flexibility for learners as

“anticipating and responding to their ever-changing needs and expectations, thus expanding

their choice in what, when, where, and how they learn” (Backroad Connections Pty Ltd,

2005, p. 3). Flexible learning has also been described as “enabling learners to learn when they

14
want (frequency, timing, duration), how they want (modes of learning), and what they want

(that is learners can define what constitutes learning to them)” (Brande (1994) cited in

Willems, 2005, p. 429).

The literature suggests that “online is a subset of elearning and e-learning is a subset

of flexible learning”, with online and e-learning about specific technologies whereas

“flexible learning is a philosophy and an approach, of which the use of technology is one,

albeit very important, component” (Backroad Connections Pty Ltd, 2005, p. 5). Flexible

learning is seen as an approach to university education that provides students with the

opportunity to take greater responsibility for their learning and to be engaged in learning

activities and opportunities that meet their own individual needs (Richardson, 2000). Students

who wish to study by flexible modes tend to enrol in courses externally (Hagel & Shaw,

2006). However, research suggests that “flexible learning options can be anything but

flexible, constraining students in ways they had not imagined, and causing untold

frustrations” (Willems, 2005, p. 430). Frequently used terms such as flexible learning, online

learning and e-learning “are understood in very diverse ways by providers and clients.

Consequently what they do under these headings, and the judgements they make about the

outcomes and outputs vary greatly” (KPMG Consulting Australia & LifeLong Learning

Associates, 2002, p. 82).

Flexible learning has similarities to open learning (discussed below) but has

constraints, and there are degrees of flexibility (Beattie & James, 1997). In practice at

Australian universities, rarely does the level of flexibility extend beyond the means by which

students interact with staff, learning resources and fellow students, and there is little

flexibility in terms of commencement, selection of courses, duration and choice of

assessment. McDonald and Postle (1999, n.p.) suggest that “the adoption of the concept of

flexible delivery has been a key initiative in many institutions although this concept has been

15
interpreted in many ways”. However, flexible learning “does not necessarily equate with

effective learning, as simply providing a range of options does not bring with it deep

learning” (Willems, 2005, p. 434). Although there has been considerable growth in the use of

flexible methods of delivery for learning and development, it is important that adequate

consideration is given to individual differences in learning styles, preferences and strategies

(Sadler-Smith & Smith, 2004). At one stage, the University’s mantra was “fast, fluid and

flexible” (Taylor, 2001, p. 2), but it was eventually abandoned by the University and no

longer appears on promotional material. It has now been replaced in the strategic plan by the

promise of personalised learning (Thomas, 2012) which reflects the characteristics of open

and flexible learning.

The proposed changes at the University do not appear to heed the advice of Willems

(2005, p. 434) who suggested that changes in learning environments should not take place

without consideration of the expectations and needs of existing students, as “some learners

may become disenfranchised in such processes by their inability to adapt to the changes or in

their prior learning preferences”.

The literature highlights that it is the total experience of study at university that

“shapes students‘ judgements of quality, motivates their engagement in learning, and

optimises their retention” (Scott, 2006, p. xiii), and should incorporate flexible and relevant

course design, committed and responsive staff, efficient administrative support, and relevant

and integrated assessment (Scott, 2006). In a cautionary note, the findings from research by

Hagel and Shaw (2006, p. 299) “call into question the migration by Australian universities

towards more ICT-intensive, flexible forms of delivery” as students indicate that “web-based

delivery did not outperform print-based delivery on convenience, time-efficiency, and

flexibility”.

16
Blended learning/block intensive/hybrid mode

In a change of direction for the University, most postgraduate students at the new

University campus near Brisbane are enrolled in coursework programs that are now delivered

via a learning and teaching model referred to as “block intensive mode” or “intensive

workshop mode” (http://www.usq.edu.au/current-students/learning-support/residential-

schools/postgraduate-workshops). However, the description of this blended model is met with

confusion on the part of staff, prospective students and the general public as evidenced at

recruiting functions and orientation sessions. The term blended learning is being used with

increasing frequency in academic writing but “closer scrutiny reveals there is considerable

disagreement regarding the meaning of the term” (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003, p. 227).

An alternative term, hybrid, is defined as being of “mixed character; composed of

different elements” (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/hybrid?q=hybrid), and

blended is defined as “an unobtrusive or harmonious part of a greater whole”

(http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/blend?q=blended). Blended learning has

been described as a hybrid instructional approach combining aspects of e-learning and a

traditional classroom environment (Ward & LaBranche (2003), cited in Smart & Cappel,

2006, p. 204) and defined as “courses that deliver material both face-to-face and online” and

where “students interact with instructors both online and face-to-face” (Caruth & Caruth,

2013, p. 142). The goals of blended learning include “pedagogical richness, access to

knowledge, social interaction and personal agency” (Osguthorpe & Graham, 2003, p. 231).

The reasons that students choose one university and/or program over another are not

clear, and vary from student to student and from institution to institution (Connelly &

Halliday, 2001; Soutar & Turner, 2002). Student surveys show that postgraduate students are

not attracted to the timing and attendance commitments associated with on-campus study

17
environments but are concerned about studying at a distance due to a perception of isolation

and lack of support (Lake, 1999).

The “intensive workshop” mode comprises two three-day intensive workshops over

weekends in addition to what students receive in external or online mode. This way of

delivering the program may be seen as consistent with the “flipped classroom” (Tucker,

2012). To provide students with access to on-campus resources for the six days of the

workshop they are required to enrol in ONC (on-campus) mode. This not only deters many

students from selecting this blended mode, but few even consider any thought of on-campus

study as a component of their part-time and predominantly off-campus learning mode.

An in-class poll conducted with students on the preferred naming of the intensive

workshop mode revealed that such terms lack clarity and that there was no consensus among

students as to the preferred name. Feedback included recommendations against the use of the

word “on-campus” because of the implication that it required on-going regular on-campus

contact. The outcome of the survey was inconclusive with no particular preference for one

term over another, as indicated in Table 2 which lists the possible names for the intensive

workshops, those suggested by students and the number of votes received for each name.

Table 2: Summary of student responses to naming of intensive workshop mode

Description of mode Number No. Student-

of votes suggeste
d name
Intensive workshop mode  4
On-campus intensive workshop mode  4
On-campus workshop mode  3
On-campus intensive block mode  3
On-campus executive block mode  2
Enhanced distance education mode  2
On-campus executive mode  1 
On-campus concentrated learning  1 
On-campus concentrated workshop  1 
On-campus block mode  1 
Executive block mode  1

18
 Workshop mode  1
Face-to-face learning mode  1 
Optional on-campus workshop  0 
On-campus mode 0
On-campus concentrated block mode 0
Block mode 0
Intensive block mode 0
Concentrated block mode 0
Executive mode 0
TOTAL VOTES 25

With the University, students enrolled in on-campus mode are in a similar situation to

that of off-campus students in most respects as they receive the same physical learning

resources and undertake the majority of their learning tasks off-campus. However, they are

entitled to participate in on-campus face-to-face learning activities in two blocks of three

days. The on-campus students enjoy all of the benefits and flexibility that off-campus

students enjoy, but gain considerable value from participation in collaborative learning

activities in a face-to-face classroom environment. Students are constantly surveyed on their

experiences, and as one student put it, “If a picture is worth 1000 words, then an intensive

workshop is worth 1000 hours of independent reading”.

Another student indicated that “the intensive mode creates a focussed learning

environment in which I can crystallise my thinking and…frees me to think more creatively

than I might otherwise and provides a challenging and intellectually stimulating learning

environment”. Student feedback on the block intensive mode indicates higher levels of

engagement between students, academics, practitioners and professional staff, and these

meaningful relationships foster deeper learning experiences. As one student stated: “…the

best things include meeting people, listening to ‘reality checks’ provided by guest speakers,

gaining some focus on assignment approaches”.

The goal of a blended learning experience is “to provide a mix of both on-line and

face-to-face experiences which support each other in achieving desired learning outcomes”

19
(Ginns & Ellis, 2007, p. 55). Many universities experiment with a blended learning model as

part of their teaching strategy, but “the term is still relatively new therefore leaving many to

question how the mixing of online and mobile learning with face to face interaction will

actually improve student experience now and in the long term” (IQPC Australia, 2012). This

hybrid mixture of off-campus and on-campus activities (Hannay & Newvine, 2006) is

difficult to explain to prospective students and feedback from those attending the actual

workshops have indicated that what one sees as “too intensive” is seen as “far from

intensive” by another.

Open learning
Higher education has been experiencing “a shift from supply driven to demand

driven” (Latchem & Hanna, 2002, p. 203) as well as an increasing trend towards openness in

education following an earlier strong focus in the 1970s and 1980s (Bell & Tight, 1993;

Holmberg, 1989, 1994; Katz, 1972). However, open learning is not specific to distance

education as it can equally apply to on-campus study and off-campus study. The Open

University (OU) (http://www.open.ac.uk/) in the United Kingdom and other universities

offering similar models of open education have provided increasing levels of openness and

flexibility for students undertaking tertiary study (Gourley & Lane, 2009). The OU UK

opened in 1971 and its most radical aspect was its admissions policy which did not insist on

any prior educational qualifications. The fundamental mission of the OU UK was to be “open

to people, places, methods and ideas” (Gourley & Lane, 2009, p. 57). It has also been a leader

in the adoption of educational technologies in order to extend its reach and has been at the

forefront in Europe in the Open Educational Resources movement with the establishment of

its OpenLearn program (http://www.open.ac.uk/about/main/the-ou-explained/history-the-ou)

in 2006.

20
 Open learning places greater emphasis on the specific needs of students and “shifts

from mass production and mass consumption to a focus on local and individual needs and

requirements” (Schlosser & Simonson, 2009, p. 6). The dimensions of openness can be

significant including removal of barriers associated with eligibility, pathways into and

through academic programs, an unrestricted choice of program or individual subjects of

study, commencement times, duration of study, learning modes, learning tasks, and choice

and submission of assessment activities. Open education is not related to whether students are

on- or off-campus, but rather reflects the absence of barriers to all aspects of the student

learning experience and reflects the need for high levels of flexibility from the student

perspective (Spencer, 1995). This can be sometimes frustrated by rigid institutional

guidelines where for example “learning assessment may be linked with on-campus academic

rhythms, which may not resonate with off-campus learners” (Willems, 2005, p. 433).

Positive examples of openness in tertiary studies can be seen in two Australian higher

education institutions. The Open Training and Education Network (OTEN) is the largest

provider of distance education and vocational training in Australia

(http://oten.tafensw.edu.au/about/). OTEN is part of the TAFE NSW - Western Sydney

Institute and has flexible policies that allow students to commence their studies at a time that

suits them and to progress at a rate that suits them, plus other aspects of study that reflect a

true openness and personalised learning from a student perspective

(http://oten.tafensw.edu.au/). As a variation on the more common MOOC (massive open

online course) model for which students normally gain no credits, the University of New

England has introduced open online courses for which students can choose to undertake

assessment for a nominal fee and thus gain credit for the course towards a degree program

(http://www.une.edu.au/for/uneopen/uneopen.php).

21
 A recent development towards greater openness in higher education has been the open

education resource (OER) movement (Caswell, Henson, Jensen, & Wiley, 2008; Laurillard,

2008) which has “focused on promoting and enabling the creation and distribution of

educational resources and OpenCourseWare (OCW) to a global audience” (T. Morgan &

Carey, 2009, p. 2). The MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) launched its

OpenCourseWare (OCW) Initiative in 2001 as a “Web-based publishing venture, not as

teaching at a distance” (Mulder, 2006, p. 1), and this has inspired other institutions to set up

similar projects leading to the formation of the Open CourseWare Consortium (Mulder, 2006,

p. 2). Vest (cited in Mulder, 2006, p. 8) has suggested that we are seeing “the emergence of

meta-universities providing a framework of open materials and platforms on which much of

higher education worldwide can be constructed or enhanced”. However OCW resources are

often not pedagogically designed materials and students require good self-study skills to take

advantage of them (Gourley & Lane, 2009).

Massive open online courses (MOOCs) are an ideal online model for delivering

learning content to virtually anyone who wants to enrol but the level of openness of the

MOOC makes it “vulnerable to inappropriate behavior” (Educause, 2011, n.p.). Given the

lack of academic support for students enrolled in a MOOC, students can be quickly

overwhelmed and this has helped to reignite “the debate of online versus classroom teaching”

(Skiba, 2012, p. 417).

Openness can be improved through increased levels of interaction, the importance of

which has long been recognised (Moore, 1989, 1993). Moore identified three critical

dimensions of interaction in learning from the perspective of the student – student/peer,

student/teacher and student/resources. Sims (2003) has explored the issue of interactivity

further and highlighted the link between interactivity and collaborative learning. He has also

highlighted the confusion surrounding this concept among those in the education field.

22
 The six dimensions of interaction below reflect the learning experience from the day a

student makes initial contact with the University to the day the student decides that their

formal learning is at an end:

 Interaction with the learning institution: Community building: This is essential to

bring together the key stakeholders to create a truly student-centred environment

consistent with the image promoted by the University.

 Interaction with the learning facilitator: Learner-centredness: This is reflected in

authentic teaching and learning tasks and activities (Bates, 1991; Kearsley &

Schneiderman, 1999; Moore, 1989) in the hybrid intensive workshop program.

 Interaction with other students: Collaborative learning; The intensive workshop

model stems from constructivist models of teaching and learning that stress the need

for a social and dialogical learning environment incorporating collaboration and

interaction between students (Garrison, 1997; Jonassen, 2003; Steeples, Jones, &

Goodyear, 2002).

 Interaction with the workplace and practitioners: Situated learning: The intensive

workshop model locates the learning experience in the world of the student and the

industry-based workplace (Herrington, 1999; Lave & Wenger, 1991).

 Interaction with learning resources: Learning support: The intensive workshop

model provides the contextualised resources and support necessary for student to

engage with the learning process and the curriculum related to their areas of study

(Barrie, McAllister, Mortenson, Worrall, & Dawson, 1996; McLoughlin, 2002; Tait,

2000).

 Interaction with assessment: Learning outcomes: Hybrid intensive workshops

allow students to work collaboratively and reflect the need to focus on assessment

activities as an integral part of the learning process as well as confirmation of

23
 achievement of learning objectives (Centre for the Study of Higher Education, 2002;

Kretovics & McCambridge, 2002; Oliver, 2000).

Summary

Based on the above analysis of competing terms for higher education delivery modes, the key

points identified are summarised as a matrix in Table 2 where:

 Learning environments have been reduced to seven generic types as indicated in the

rows with some modes aggregated where they have been shown to be equivalent.

 Each of the seven types of learning environment has attributes which correspond to

the seven column headings. For example, flexible learning offers flexibility by

definition and those intersecting cells are shaded black and contain “yes”.

 Block intensive/blended/hybrid mode has “yes” at the intersections with face-to-face

mode and off-campus learning activity as these are both integral components of that

mode.

 Attributes that are incompatible with a learning environment are shown as “no”. For

example, there should be no requirement for an external student to take part in on-

campus face-to-face learning activities.

 Other attributes are shown as “possible” where it is not an inherent or mandatory

dimension of that environment. For example, all environments may offer flexibility

but flexibility may not be an inherent attribute. This analysis illustrates the lack of

precision in the use of most terms describing the learning environments.

Table 2: Learning environments and attributes

Learning Attribute of learning environment
environment Face to Off- Online Computer- Flexibility Intensive Openness
face campus access and based /
classroom learning participation learning blended
learning activity activity

24
 activity
On-campus Yes Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible

Off-campus / No Yes Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible

distance
learning /
external
learning
Online Possible Possible Yes Possible Possible Possible Possible
learning /
networked
learning

e-learning / Possible Possible Possible Yes Possible Possible Possible

computer-
based
learning
Flexible Possible Possible Possible Possible Yes Possible Possible
learning

Block Yes Yes Possible Possible Possible Yes Possible

intensive /
blended
learning
mode /
hybrid
Open Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Yes
learning

The cell containing “no” reflects that an off-campus / distance / external learning

environment is inconsistent with any requirement to participate in on-campus face-to-face

learning activities, and enrolment guidelines for a truly off-campus mode should reflect that

exclusion. However, it is common to see programs offered in “off-campus” mode that include

a mandatory component of on-campus activity - this should more accurately be presented as

a blended or hybrid learning environment.

Some intersecting cells contain the term “possible” which indicates that it is a

possible attribute of that learning environment but not a mandatory one. The matrix indicates

the lack of clarity in the terminology of the various learning environments and what is

expected of a student in each of those learning environments. It also reflects the lack of

clarity in what is expected of academic staff in the design of the respective learning

25
environments, leading to an inconsistent and frustrating experience for students as they move

from institution to institution, program to program and course to course.

The University’s strategic message

The findings from the analysis above provide guidelines for the University in

implementing appropriate learning environments at a strategic level, how they should be

defined at an operational level and how they should be promoted to students to accurately the

learning experiences they will experience. Students are then better equipped to choose the

most appropriate learning environment and study mode to suit their personal learning

objectives and learning styles, and can clearly understand the implications of choosing one

mode over another.

In a review of higher education and the role of universities, Ernst & Young (2012, p.

4) have suggested that “…campuses will remain, but digital technologies will transform the

way education is delivered and accessed, and the way “value” is created by higher education

providers, public and private alike”. Market demands may force the University to develop

new learning environments and study modes that reflect their new business model.

Conclusion
The University promises “personalised learning” (Thomas, 2012) but has yet to

articulate how that is to be operationalized within the University as a learning environment

and mode of study. The literature suggests that the choice of an “online” theme for the

University runs the risk of deterring those students who have negative perceptions of an

online learning environment, especially international students who make up twenty per cent

of all enrolments.

The use of terminology such as flexible, blended or hybrid does not convey a

meaningful image of the learning environment to prospective students in comparison to the

26
more recognisable image conveyed by the term distance education. The literature suggests

that a message of openness best fits with the strategic plan and the University’s promise, but

the University has yet shown little tendency to move towards a truly open learning

environment.

Arguably, once an institution is clear on the delivery modes it is using for student

access to courses, prospective students will have a clearer understanding of the attendance

options available.

List of references
Aggarwal, A. (Ed.). (2000). Web-Based Learning and Teaching Technologies: Opportunities
and Challenges. Hershey, USA.: Idea Group Publishing.
AMIDEAST. (2012). Evaluating a distance education program Retrieved 10 September,
2012, from http://www.amideast.org/usstudy/other-us-study-options/evaluating-
distance-education-program
Anderson, N. (2000, 26 June to 1 July). Web-based: instructional effectiveness. Paper
presented at the Ed-Media 2000, Montreal, Canada.
Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2010). Three generations of distance education pedagogy (Vol.
12).
Austrade. (2012). Education to China Retrieved 10 September, 2012, from
http://www.austrade.gov.au/Education-to-China/default.aspx
Backroad Connections Pty Ltd. (2005). Definition of key terms used in e-learning: Australian
National Training Authority.
Barrie, S., McAllister, L., Mortenson, L., Worrall, L., & Dawson, V. (1996). Pathways to
professional competence: Supporting student learning. Paper presented at the
Different approaches: Theory and practice in higher education, Perth.
http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/barrie.html
Bates, A. (1991). Interactivity as a criterion for media selection in distance education. Never
Too Far, 16, 5-9.
Beattie, K., & James, R. (1997). Flexible coursework delivery to Australian postgraduates:
How effective is the teaching and learning? Higher Education, 33(2), 177-194.
Bell, R., & Tight, M. (1993). Open universities: a British tradition? Buckingham, UK:
Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
Bolliger, D. U., & Wasilik, O. (2009). Factors influencing faculty satisfaction with online
teaching and learning in higher education. Distance education, 30(1), 103-116. doi:
10.1080/01587910902845949
Boulton, J. (2002). Web-based distance education: Pedagogy, epistemology, and instructional
design Retrieved 28 February, 2003, from
http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/boulton/index.htm
Campbell, J. O., & Bourne, J. (1997). Designing distributed learning systems vol 1 Issue 2.
Retrieved 22 February, 2003, from
http://www.aln.org/publications/magazine/v1n2/campbell.asp

27
Caruth, G. D., & Caruth, D. L. (2013). Distance education in the United States: from
correspondence courses to the internet. Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education, 14(2), 141-149.
Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open content and open educational
resources: Enabling universal education. The International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning, 9(1).
Centre for the Study of Higher Education. (2002). Assessing large classes. Assessing
Learning in Australian Universities: Ideas, strategies and resources for quality in
student assessment Retrieved 7 April 2008, from
http://www.cshe.unimelb.edu.au/assessinglearning/03/large.html
Connelly, G., & Halliday, J. (2001). Reasons for choosing a further education: The views of
700 new entrants. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 53(2), 181-192.
Daniel, J. (2012). Making sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and
possibility. Journal of Interactive Media in Education, 3.
Dawkins, J. (1988). Higher Education: a policy statement (White Paper). Canberra:
Department of Employment, Education and Training.
Dodd, T. (2012). Free online courses will change universities. Financial Review. Retrieved
from
http://www.afr.com/p/national/education/free_online_courses_will_change_7ngMdH
AbNt5JXJFgLqR79O
Educause. (2011). Things you should know about...MOOCs. Educause Learning Initiative,
(November). Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7078.pdf
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. (2013). Typology Britannica Academic Edition. Sydney,
Australia: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
Erdos, R. F. (1986). Some developments in distance education in Australia. Ziff Papiere, 61.
Ernst & Young. (2012). University of the future: A thousand year old industry on the cusp of
profound change: Ernst & Young.
Forsyth, H., Pizzica, J., Laxton, R., & Mahony, M. J. (2010). Distance education in an era of
eLearning: challenges and opportunities for a campus‐focused institution. Higher
Education Research & Development, 29(1), 15-28. doi: 10.1080/07294360903421350
Garrison, D. (1997). Computer conferencing: The post-industrial age of distance education.
Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 12(2), 3-11.
Ginns, P., & Ellis, R. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships
between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher
Education, 10(1), 53-64. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.10.003
Goodyear, P., Hodgson, V., Steeples, C., Jones, C., Asensio, M., O'Donoghue, M., . . .
Hutchinson, D. (2001). Networked learning in higher education: Notes and guidelines.
Lancaster: Centre for Studies in Advanced Learning Technologies.
Gourley, B., & Lane, A. (2009). Re‐invigorating openness at The Open University: the role
of Open Educational Resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and
e-Learning, 24(1), 57-65. doi: 10.1080/02680510802627845
Hagel, P., & Shaw, R. N. (2006). Students' Perceptions of Study Modes. Distance education,
27(3), 283-302. doi: 10.1080/01587910600940398
Hannay, M., & Newvine, T. (2006). Perceptions of distance learning: A comparison of online
and traditional learning. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 2(2), 1-11.
Herrington, J., & Oliver, Ron. (1999). Using Situated Learning and Multimedia to Investigate
Higher-Order Thinking. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 8(4),
401-422.
Higgins, K., & Harreveld, R. E. (2011). The casual academic in university distance
education from isolation to integration - a prescription for change. Paper presented at

28
 the DEHub & Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia 2011-2021
Summit: Global challenges and perspectives of blended and distance learning.
http://hdl.cqu.edu.au/10018/918753
Hitt, J. C., & Hartman, J. L. (2002). Distributed Learning: New Challenges and Opportunities
for Institutional Leadership. In A. C. o. Education (Ed.), Distributed Education:
Challenges, Choices, and a New Environment. Washington: American Council on
Education Center for Policy Analysis.
Holmberg, B. (1989). The Concepts and Applications of Distance Education and Open
Learning.
Holmberg, B. (1994). Open universities - their rationale, characteristics and prospects Ziff
Papiere, 92(June).
Howland, J. L., & Moore, J. L. (2002). Student Perceptions as Distance Learners in Internet-
Based Courses. Distance education, 23(2), 183-195. doi:
10.1080/0158791022000009196
IQPC Australia. (2012). How will a blended learning model improve student experience?
Retrieved 7 March 2013, 2013, from http://www.blended-
learning.com.au/uploadedFiles/EventRedesign/Australia/2012/August/21475001/Asse
ts/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Blended%20Learning%20and%20Student
%20Experience.pdf
Jonassen, D. (2003). Designing of Constructivist Learning Environments Retrieved 28
February, 2003, from http://tiger.coe.missouri.edu/~jonassen/courses/CLE/index.html
Jung, I., & Latchem, C. (2012). Quality assurance and accreditation in distance education and
e-learning: models, policies and research. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis.
Katz, L. G. (1972). Research on Open Education: Problems and Issues.
Kearsley, G., & Schneiderman, B. (1999). Engagement theory: A framework for technology-
based teaching and learning Retrieved 10 July, 2003, from
http://home.sprynet.com/~gkearsley/engage.htm
Keegan, D. (1996). Foundations of distance education (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.
KPMG Consulting Australia & LifeLong Learning Associates. (2002). Evaluation of the
Australian flexible learning framework 2000 – 2001: Australian National Training
Authority.
Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2002). The sociability of computer-supported
collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology & Society, 5(1).
Kretovics, M., & McCambridge, J. (2002). Measuring MBA student learning: Does distance
make a difference? The International Review of Research into Open and Distance
Learning, 3(2), 1-18.
Lake, D. (1999). Reducing isolation for distance students: An online initiative. Open
Learning, 14(3), 14-23.
Latchem, C., & Hanna, D. E. (2002). Leadership for open and flexible learning Open
Learning, 17(3), 203-215.
Laurillard, D. (2008). Open teaching: The key to sustainable and effective open education.
Opening up education: The collective advancement of education through open
technology, open content, and open knowledge, 319-336.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lea, M. R., & Nicoll, K. (Eds.). (2002). Distributed learning: Social and cultural approaches
to practice. London: Routledge Falmer.
Lockee, B., Perkins, R., Potter, K., Burton, J., & Kreb, S. (2011). Defining qualty in distance
education: examining national and international standards in online learning. Paper

29
 presented at the 27th Annual Conference on Distance Teaching and Learning,
Madison, USA.
Lund, C., & Volet, S. (1998). Barriers to studying online for the first time: Students'
perceptions. Paper presented at the Planning for Progress, Partnership and Profit,
Perth.
McDonald, J., & Postle, G. (1999). Teaching online: Challenge to a reinterpretation of
traditional instructional models. Paper presented at the AusWeb 99 Fifth Australian
World Wide Web Conference, Lismore, Australia.
http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw99/papers/mcdonald/paper.htm
McLoughlin, C. (2002). Learner support in distance and networked learning environments:
Ten dimensions for successful design. Distance Education, 23(2), 149-162.
McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2003). Investigating the quality of the student experience
online: Social engagement factors. Paper presented at the World Conference on
Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, Chesapeake,
Vancouver http://www.editlib.org/index.cfm/files/paper_13902.pdf?
fuseaction=Reader.DownloadFullText&paper_id=13902
Moore, M. (1989). Three types of interaction. [Editorial]. The American Journal of Distance
Education, 3(2), 1-7.
Moore, M. (Ed.). (1993). Theory of transactional distance (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Morgan, C. K., & Tam, M. (1999). Unravelling the complexities of distance education
student attrition. Distance education, 20(1), 96-108. doi: 10.1080/0158791990200108
Morgan, T., & Carey, S. (2009). From Open Content to Open Course Models: Increasing
Access and Enabling Global Participation in Higher Education (Vol. 10).
Muilenburg, L. Y., & Berge, Z. L. (2005). Student barriers to online learning: A factor
analytic study. Distance education, 26(1), 29-48. doi: 10.1080/01587910500081269
Mulder, F. (2006). The advancement of Lifelong Learning through Open Educational
Resources in an open and flexible (self) learning context. Presentations Dies Natalis.
Retrieved from
http://www.ou.nl/Docs/Campagnes/SCOP/OER_paper_by_Fred_Mulder.pdf
Natale, C. F. (2011). Teaching in the world of virtual k–12 learning: challenges to ensure
educator quality: Educational Testing Service.
Oliver, M. (2000). Developing and evaluating courses to meet learning outcomes Retrieved 3
September, 2008, from http://www.warwick.ac.uk/ETS/interactions/vol4no1/
Osguthorpe, R. T., & Graham, C. R. (2003). Blended learning environments. [Article].
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 4(3), 227-233.
Parry, M. (2009). Professors embrace online courses despite qualms about quality. The
Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from Technology website:
http://chronicle.com/article/Professors-Embrace-Online/48235
Pollard, E., & Hillage, J. (2001). Exploring e-Learning (pp. 67). Grantham, United Kingdom:
The Institute for Employment Studies.
Richardson, J. (2000). Researching student learning: Approaches to studying in campus-
based and distance education. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher
Education and the Open University Press.
Roberts, D. (2000). Continuity and change in distance education at Australian universities:
Some personal reflections. Paper presented at the Distance education: An open
question? Conference, Novotel Hotel, Adelaide.
http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/cccc/papers/refereed/paper39/Paper39-1.htm
Rodriguez, C. O. (2013). Two distinct course formats in the delivery of connectivist moocs.
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 14(2), 66-80.

30
Sadler-Smith, E., & Smith, P. J. (2004). Strategies for accommodating individuals’ styles and
preferences in flexible learning programmes. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 35(4), 395-412.
Schlosser, L. A., & Simonson, M. R. (2009). Distance education: definition and glossary of
terms. Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing.
Scott, G. (2006). Accessing the student voice: Using CEQuery to identify what retains
students and promotes engagement in productive learning in Australian higher
education. Canberra: Department of Education, Science and Training.
Sims, R. (2003). Promises of interactivity: aligning learner perceptions and expectations with
strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance education, 24(1), 87-103.
Skiba, D. J. (2012). Disruption in Higher Education: Massively Open Online Courses
(MOOCs). Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(6), 416-417. doi: 10.5480/1536-5026-
33.6.416
Smart, K. L., & Cappel, J. J. (2006). Students’ perceptions of online learning: a comparative
study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 201-219.
Soutar, G. N., & Turner, J. P. (2002). Students’ preferences for university: a conjoint
analysis. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40-45.
Spencer, B. (1995). Removing barriers and enhancing openness: Distance education as social
adult education. Journal of Distance Education/Revue de l'enseignement à distance,
10(2), 87-104. Retrieved from
http://www.jofde.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/237/600
Steeples, C., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2002). Networked learning: Perspectives and issues.
London: Springer Verlag.
Steeples, C., Jones, C., & Goodyear, P. (2002). Beyond e-learning: A future for networked
learning. In C. Steeples & C. Jones (Eds.), Networked learning: Perspectives and
issues (pp. 323-342). London: Springer Verlag.
Tait, A. (2000). Planning student support for open and distance learning. Open Learning,
15(3), 287-299.
Taylor, J. (2001). Fifth generation distance education. Paper presented at the 20th ICDE
World Conference, Düsseldorf.
http://www.usq.edu.au/users/taylorj/publications_presentations/5thGenerationDE.doc
Thomas, J. (2012). Draft Strategic Plan 2013-2015 Promise Fulfilled. University of Southern
Queensland. Toowoomba.
Tucker, B. (2012). The flipped classroom. Education Next, 12(1), 82-83.
Willems, J. (2005). Flexible Learning: Implications of “when-ever”, “where-ever” and “what-
ever”. Distance education, 26(3), 429-435. doi: 10.1080/01587910500291579

31