Ted Nunan (ted.nunan@unisa.edu.au)
Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:34:10 +0930
From: Ted Nunan <ted.nunan@unisa.edu.au> Subject: Can we really please everyone? Date: Wed, 6 Oct 1999 11:34:10 +0930
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discuss@LISTSERV.READADP.COM
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Forum of Educational Technology and Society:
Flexible Learning: Can we really please everyone?
Discussion Moderator
Alan Holzl: University of Queensland
I enjoyed the discussion paper prepared by Alan Holzl - however, I would like
to highlight an aspect of my paper (Alan has cited my interpretation of what
educational stakeholders find in "flexibility") as it may be useful when
addressing the question "Can we really please everyone?"
In the paragraph of my paper 'Flexible delivery - What is it and Why is it a
part of current educational debate?' - that contains the sentences "Flexibility
is a characteristic which satisfies many stakeholders in education" and "In
short, the solution of flexible delivery and flexible learning has the virtue
that it provides something for everybody" I also have another sentence about
"flexibility". The sentence is: "It is a solution which can be paraded as a
philosophy - but, at the same time, if this runs the risk of challenging
existing beliefs and values, it can be cast as a technique to be used in the
service of an educational philosophy or ideology". What I intended to convey
was that we are dealing with a matter of rhetoric and that many stakeholders
will use the word "flexible" in ways that advantage their views and values.
Elsewhere (Ted Nunan, Interrogating the concept of flexibility in Jakupec V and
Garrick J (1999) Flexible Learning,and HRD : Putting the theory to work
Routledge, London I write:
'the use of the word flexible in educational writing (reveals that) it
has multiple meanings. The word is usually coupled with other educational
concepts such as learning institutions (flexible organisations), delivery
systems (flexible delivery) and learning (flexible learning), indicating its
relevance for managers, educational workers, and students alike. It is
associated with the notion of reform in higher education and is often cited as
a response tot he change from an elite to a mass system. It is viewed as a
response to globalisation, new information technologies, and new ways of
consumption by educational 'consumers' in post-Fordist societies. It is
connected with student-centred learning, reaching national training and
educational goals to achieve a productive and competitive workforce, and is
also seen as a way of competing in the local and global markets that are being
created for educational services. Educationally, flexibility is both a means
to, and an end of, lifelong learning; lifelong learning creates flexibility and
flexibility of educational provision makes possible lifelong learning.
My point is that unless we interrogate the ways in which the word flexible is
used, the discourse within which it lies, and the social, political and
economic values (i.e. educational values) behind the interests of those that
use the term 'flexible' it will continue to have 'something for everybody'. The
often contradictory implications and connotations that the term carries will be
seen as "post-modern" and expected as there is no one grand theory or construct
that could be expected to apply to something as complex as education!
This appeal to post-modernism is, I believe, an educational cul-de-sac. Instead
I believe there is a need to interrogate the uses of the term flexible and make
clear the interests that are served by using it in particular ways. To achieve
such interrogation I suggest that it is useful to trace the lineage of the term
flexibility through three discourses: first in the sociology and management of
education, second in the sociology of work and third in the literature written
by teachers. When we move beyond the literature written by teachers we begin to
see how various social, political and economic forces are shaping educational
change through the connotations carried by the term.
Yes, I can well agree with Alan that the answer to the discussion question is
"It depends". Further, our answer to the question is likely to always be "It
depends" because behind the question lies a host of complex political, social
and economic choices. However, to move beyond this answer we need to first
sharpen our analysis so that we are forced to remove our reliance upon the term
flexibility by making sure that we use other descriptors to refine what we mean
by 'flexible' and second we need to change the question to one which grounds
the term 'flexible learning' to a particular political, institutional and
personal context.
If we are brave enough to take these steps it is less likely that we will be
happy with the answer "It depends"! Indeed, because we are now likely to have
to deal with actual situations and actual choices between values we will care
about the answer and choose not to answer as if all perspectives were equally
valid. Flexible now would have a limited set of meanings and our debate would
be considerably sharper!
Associate Professor Ted Nunan
Flexible Learning Centre
University of South Australia
---------------------------------------------------------
Forum website: http://ifets.gmd.de/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@ieee.org
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.gmd.de/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed 06 Oct 1999 - 10:24:30 MEST