What we talk about when we talk about flexibility

Stuart Allan, Director of Digital Learning, Arden University

Stuart Allan, Director of Digital Learning, Arden University

The idea that learning, teaching and assessment should work flexibly around students’ lives is an inviting one.Although some universities were quick to snap back to long-established model sat the end of the pandemic, others are now considering more flexible approaches for the first time as a way of broadening their reach (and, let’s be honest, generating additional income). And among students, pandemic-era arrangements have accelerated pre-existing debates about exactly what a university education is, what it’s for, and how it should be provided.

The term ‘flexibility’ is itself highly malleable,with its meaning often stretched tomean different things to different people. However, in UK higher education at least, flexible approaches can be loosely grouped into three categories: blended (a mixture of face-to-face and online classes, with teaching usually taking place ‘live’ and in cohorts), hyflex (hybrid and flexible, including a mixture of online and face-to-face live teaching, with some asynchronous online learning) and ‘full flex’ (where students can start and finish their course at any point, studying entirely online at times of their choosing).

The idea of flexing the times and spaces of higher education troubles some of its most cherished assumptions, particularly about student engagement. Critics have often compared flexible approaches unfavourably with the perceived ‘gold standard’ of a fully campus-based education,designed around institutionally defined locations and timetables.They argue that meaningful engagement can only occur when students and teachers are co-present in the same time and place. However, advocates of flexibility would argue that such campus nostalgia has little basis in evidence, and that its assumptions idealise a very particular kind of student – active, collaborative and highly communicative–to the exclusion of others. These assumptions can alsolead to a superficial emphasis on visible, observable forms of student engagement in activity and assessment design – for example, grading contributions to in-class or online discussions – over quieter, more reflective approaches(which are sometimes dismissed as ‘passive’ or ‘lurking’ behaviours).

The potential benefits of flexibility for students are clear: they open up educational opportunities to individuals who have work, family or other caring responsibilities, who live a long distancefrom university campuses, or experience other barriers to access. Not requiring co-presence at predefined times offers students a sense of control and balance that can be highly valuable. Some students perceive hyflex or full-flex optionsas more attractive than a traditional on-campus education, in stark contrast to the deficit model outlined above.

“Before embarking on blended, hyflex or full-flex provision, universities might find it useful to write down exactly what they mean by flexibility. Which specific benefits are they seeking to deliver, and to whom and at what cost?”The Experience environment also allows students to log in just once and access multiple resources, reducing the need for duplicate credential entries

In a previous role, I worked on a large-scale ‘full flex’ online programme that defined itself by its flexibility, and the tensions within it were visible on an almost daily basis. Some students thrived on the freedomthat the highly flexible approach offered them, while otherstold me they yearned for the structure of a cohort.Module leaders worked incredibly hard to foster engagement, but because students defined the pace of their studies individually some felt they were casting their comments into a voidwhen they participated in online forums. Overall, ultimate flexibility worked wellfor a very particular group of students: those who excelled at time-management, needed little or no support from teachers or peers, and were extremely motivated.So the people who still thought structure was important, but were more than happy to create their own.

And for those of us working to deliver the programme, the more flexible it became externally – e.g. no prescribed route through the programme, no time limit on completion – the more rigid we had to become internally.Our entire back- and front-end infrastructure, including student record systems, learning platforms and assessment models, had to be incredibly robust,and were often built from scratch. The large up-front investment that this required, combined with the lack of boundaries around student intakes and completion,became a barrier to change internally. We were able to redesign the curriculum,enhance our learning platform, and support our students through change, but doing so was highly complex and labour-intensive.

Before embarking on blended, hyflex or full-flex provision, universitiesmight find it useful to write down exactly what they mean by flexibility. Which specific benefits are they seeking to deliver, and to whom? At what cost? And what will need to remain (or become) rigid in order to deliver it?This process should include careful analysis of the specific forms of student and teacher engagement that would be encouraged or proscribed via a flexible approach, both explicitly and tacitly. Finally, torealise the full benefits of flexibility for students, many universities will have to rethink theirentire human and technological infrastructure– so they must draw on deep insights into who their students are, and the specific opportunities and constraintsof their institutional context. A critical perspective,both on flexible approaches and more traditional ones,is long overdue.