Juggling the balls—study, work, family and play: student perspectives on flexible and blended heutagogy

European Early Childhood Education Research JournalVol. 15, No. 2, June 2007

ISSN 1350-293X (print)/ISSN 1752-1807 (online)/07/020167–15© 2007 EECERADOI: 10.1080/13502930701321378

Juggling the balls—study, work, family and play: student perspectives on flexible and blended heutagogyJean Ashton* and Roslyn ElliottUniversity of Western Sydney, AustraliaTaylor and Francis LtdRECR_A_232033.sgm10.1080/13502930701321378European Early Childhood Education Research Journal1350-293X (print)/1752-1807 (online)Original Article2007Taylor & Francis152000000June [email protected]

This article draws on research with the student cohort in one of the early childhood teacher educa-tion programmes at the University of Western Sydney, Australia. It explores students’ perceptionsof a flexible and blended pedagogy, or ‘heutagogy’ which combines online work with face-to-facelectures and tutorials. Research into teaching and learning suggests that heutagogy (encouragingstudents to take responsibility for their own learning), rather than pedagogy, more closely approxi-mates the way knowledge is appropriated by adult learners in the modern world. The study inves-tigates the relevance of flexible and blended delivery modes and using heutagogy for students whohave taken up university study after completion of lower level courses at a technical institution. Theprogramme developed acknowledges students’ need to work and considers the dynamics of familylife. In recognition of students’ complex study/work/family responsibilities and the need in somecases for considerable travel across Sydney, face-to-face tuition has been limited to two days perweek. Data have been collected from student focus group discussions, surveys and online recordsand the results, when analysed, indicate that with support, learning in blended mode can be bene-ficial for most students, and preferred by some students over only face-to-face tuition.

Cet article présente une recherche sur une cohorte d’étudiants inscrits dans un des programmes deformation à l’éducation préscolaire de l’université de Western Sydney, Australie. Il explore lesperceptions des étudiants face à une pédagogie flexible et ouverte, ou ‘heutagogie’ qui combine travailen ligne et cours ou conférences en présentiel. La recherche sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissagesuggère que cet heutagogie (encourageant les étudiants à prendre la responsabilité de leur propreformation) plutôt que pédagogie, permet d’approcher plus précisément l’appropriation de laconnaissance par des apprenants adultes dans le monde moderne. L’étude analyse la pertinence del’usage de ces modes flexibles et mixtes et de l’heutagogie, pour les étudiants qui sont entrés àl’université après un premier niveau de formation dans un établissement technique. Le programmedéveloppé reconnaît le besoin des étudiants de travailler et prend en compte les dynamiques de lavie de famille. Dans la reconnaissance de l’engagement des étudiants face à la combinaison étude/travail/famille et des temps de trajets considérables à Sydney, la formation présentielle a été limitée

*Corresponding author. School of Education, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797,Penrith South DC, NSW 1797, Australia. Email: [email protected]

168 J. Ashton and R. Elliott

à deux jours par semaine. Des données ont été recueillies à partir de groupes de discussion entreétudiants, ainsi que d’enquêtes et d’enregistrements d’informations en ligne. Les résultats après anal-yse indiquent que, avec la présence d’un soutien, la formation ouverte apporte des bénéfices à laplupart des étudiants, et est préférée par certains étudiants à une formation uniquement présentielle.

Berichtet wird über Forschung mit einem Studentenjahrgang eines Ausbildungsprogramms fürfrühpädagogische Fachkräfte an der Universität von Western Sydney, Australien. Die Vorstellungender Kursteilnehmer werden untersucht über eine flexible und gemischte Pädagogik oder ‘Heuta-gogik’, in der Online-Arbeit mit Unterrichtseinheiten von Angesicht zu Angesicht und Tutorienkombiniert wird. Forschung über Lehren und Lernen legt nahe, dass diese Heutagogik (die dieVerantwortungsübernahme für das eigene Lernen ermutigt) eher als herkömmliche Pädagogik sichder Art und Weise annähert, wie Wissen von erwachsenen Lernern in der modernen Welt erworbenwird. Die Relevanz flexibler und gemischter Angebotsmodi und der Heutagogik wird erforscht beiStudierenden, die nach Abschluss einfacherer Ausbildungsgänge an einer technischen Einrichtungein Universitätsstudium aufgenommen haben. Das entwickelte Programm berücksichtigt dieNotwendigkeit der Erwerbstätigkeit der Kursteilnehmer und die Dynamik des Familienlebens. InAnerkenntnis der komplexen Verantwortlichkeiten der Studierenden in Bezug auf Studium,Erwerbstätigkeit und Familie sowie der Notwendigkeit in einigen Fällen, weite Wege durch Sydneyzurückzulegen, wurde Unterricht mit persönlichem Kontakt auf zwei Tage pro Woche begrenzt.Daten wurden gesammelt aus Gruppendiskussionen, Umfrage und aus Online-.Berichten. DieErgebnisse der Analysen zeigen, dass Lernen über gemischte Modi und mit Unterstützung für diemeisten Kursteilnehmer vorteilhaft sein kann und von einigen Studierenden dem Unterricht mitpersönlichem Kontakt vorgezogen wurde.

Este papel se basa en una investigación de una cohorte de estudiantes en uno de los programas deeducación de profesores parvularios en la universidad de Sydney occidental, Australia. Explora lasopiniones de los estudiantes acerca de una pedagogía flexible y mixta, o el ‘heutagogy’ que combinael trabajo en línea con el cara a cara de conferencias y tutorías. La investigación en enseñanza yaprendizaje sugiere que la heutagogy (que anima a los estudiantes a tomar la responsabilidad de supropio aprendizaje) más bien que la pedagogía, es más cercana a la manera de obtener conocimientoapropiada para jóvenes adultos en el mundo moderno. El estudio investiga la importancia de losmodos flexibles y mixtos en la enseñanza y el uso de la heutagogy, para los estudiantes que haniniciado los estudios en la universidad, después de la finalizado cursos de nivel inferior en una insti-tución técnica. El programa desarrollado reconoce la necesidad de trabajar los estudiantes y consid-era la dinámica de la vida de familia. En el reconocimiento de las responsabilidades complejas deestudio/trabajo/familia de los estudiantes y la necesidad en algunos casos de viajes considerable através de Sydney, la tutoría cara a cara se ha limitado a dos días por semana. Los datos se hanrecogido a través de discusiones focalizadas de grupo, encuestas y grabaciones, y los resultados anal-izados indican que con ayuda, el modo de aprendizaje mixto puede ser beneficioso para la mayoríade los estudiantes, y preferido por algunos estudiantes al modo con solamente tutoría cara a cara.

Keywords: Australia; face-to-face tuition; family life; ‘heutagogy’; learning in blended mode; pedagogy

Changing climate of learning

In the higher education environment of the twenty-first century, mandated knowledgein specific content areas, traditionally taught using top–down pedagogies, may nolonger be appropriate for today’s learners. In a climate of rapid and continual change,teacher educators must reflect on existing educational programs and reconsider the

Student perspectives on flexible and blended heutagogy 169

way adult students acquire knowledge. Today’s global learners need the ability tothink independently and critically, to effectively solve problems, to communicateclearly and manage time efficiently. The ability to access appropriate information ina global world is dependent more on transferable general skills than on specific knowl-edge skills (Bright et al., 2000), and there is pressure from government and employergroups on the tertiary sector in Australia and New Zealand to graduate students withsuch attributes.

In recent years government funding cuts to Australian Universities have meant arationalisation of services and a rethinking of pedagogy in order to maintain qualityand integrity in courses offered. While challenging for academics, it has also been timelyin that it has encouraged ‘debate, decision-making, new knowledge creation and actionfor change’ (Ashton & Newman, 2006, p. 1) to meet government and employer pres-sures and workplace needs. Academics in teacher education programmes have had todevelop the ‘technical skills, dispositions and multicultural and political understand-ings to use new technologies’ (Kell et al., 2004, p. xxiii), if their courses are to be relevantto students preparing for life, study and work in a global world.

The shift to a global economy has transformed modes of organisation, socialpatterns and relations in today’s society, which has had effects on education otherthan those previously noted (Darab, 2004). For example, there has been an influx ofstudents returning to study, or undertaking study for the first time after marriage andchildren. Women now make up the majority of the university student population(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004) and almost all students are in some form offull- or part-time employment (Kember, 1999; Ogunsiji & Wilkes, 2004/5).

Early childhood training in Australia

Training for early childhood services in Australia operates within a two-tiered system.Depending on the type and size of service, age of children, and licensing and regula-tory requirements, services are staffed by graduates with a two-year Diploma ofChildren’s Services from a technical institution, or with a minimum four-yearUniversity Early Childhood teaching qualification. However, given an acute shortageof suitably qualified early childhood trained teachers (Warrilow & Fisher, 2002) inthe Sydney region and beyond, an increasing number of Diploma graduates, many ofwhom are of a mature age with diverse work and life histories, take advantage of thecredit offered by universities to upgrade their qualifications. Although some Diplomagraduates excel in the university environment and adapt readily to the rigors ofacademia, many are challenged by the academic standards at university level andattrition amongst this cohort has, in the past, been high.

In conjunction with the reframing of all early childhood programmes at the Univer-sity of Western Sydney (UWS) in 2005, new courses were created (a three-yearundergraduate Bachelor of Early Childhood Studies [BECS], followed by a graduate-entry, eighteen-month Master of Teaching [MTeach]). A one-year bridging coursewas designed for the Diploma graduates, to supplement their existing knowledge andexperience and to qualify them for the BECS, which would allow graduate entry into


the MTeach. This occurred in line with university imperatives to streamlineprogrammes, and to meet the demands of a diversifying early childhood market. In2006, some of the units created in 2005 began to be offered in flexible and blendeddelivery mode.

A study of students from the Diploma cohort in the BECS program (Ashton &Elliott, 2007) found that students have an amazing array of life circumstances andresponsibilities in addition to their studies. Many students work long hours, areresponsible for parents, children, siblings and other family members, travel longdistances to university and are anxious about their studies because of their weakacademic skills. Added to this is their desire to maintain at least some face-to-faceinteractions even in a largely e-learning environment, especially in light of the strug-gles they experience with academic tasks.

This article addresses students’ perceptions of flexible and blended modes of deliv-ery and whether a new pedagogy or ‘heutagogy’, where students have been encour-aged to take greater responsibility for their own learning, has been conducive toknowledge creating from their perspectives. The literature informing this article isdrawn from research on e-learning and heutagogy as discussed below.

E-learning, flexible and blended modes of delivery and heutagogy

Two major impacts of globalisation are its effect on the way adult students learn, andthe use of web-based technology to promote e-learning. E-learning enables access tothe most contemporary information, delivered by professionals regarded as experts intheir fields. Students are able to study from home, whilst still working and managingthe multifaceted aspects of their demanding lives. Nonetheless, e-learning is alsoshrouded in debate. E-learning is costly, and it requires state-of-the-art technology forboth the institution and the learner and thought-provoking content design and teach-ing materials. Educators and tutors need to be skilled in managing discussion andonline debate and have time to invest in their online learners (Goodyear, 2005).

There are issues, too, for students at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum,who, while they might have computers, have little money to invest in software, or thebroadband or wireless connections required to support online learning. Of evengreater concern is the potential for online learners to feel disconnected and isolated,which has been found to impact their levels of participation, satisfaction and learning(McDonald et al., 2005). Mindful of this, the academic team at UWS chose ablended, rather than an exclusive e-learning, approach to delivery of its programmes.Flexible and blended teaching uses e-learning processes and tools such as web links,email, online content modules, online quizzes, assignment exchange and discussions,together with some traditional face-to-face lectures and tutorials (Marsh, 2001;Ashton & Newman, 2006).

Concepts of blended learning vary, however. Carman (2002) conceives of blendedlearning as online learning, blending theories and philosophies, not just as modes ofdelivery. He notes five key ingredients necessary for a successful blended learningdesign:


● Live events (synchronous, instructor-led learning events in which all learnersparticipate at the same time, such as in a live ‘virtual classroom’);

● Self-paced learning (learning experiences that learners complete individually, attheir own speed and in their own time);

● Collaboration (environments in which learners communicate with each other—forexample, email, threaded discussions or online chat);

● Assessment (a measure of learners’ knowledge);● Performance support materials (on-the-job reference materials that enhance learn-

ing retention and transfer, including downloads, printable references, images ormovie clips).

The flexible and blended early childhood units at UWS embrace all the benefits ofthe virtual (Carman, 2002) but include the ‘real classroom’ in which synchronous,instructor-led learning events take place. Self-paced assessment occurs onlinealthough at present is not credited toward the final grade, which is determined byexamining a range of individual and group-based tasks. Collaboration is encouragedin both online and real environments, and online and face-to-face units use a rangeof easily accessed web-based materials.

E-learning and flexible and blended modes of course delivery are appropriate in aglobal world for global learners. However, to support the development of the dispo-sitions, knowledge and skills for twenty-first-century workplaces (Ashton & Newman,2006), a clearly articulated position on teaching was needed to promote theseoutcomes. Ashton and Newman (2006), in their work on heutagogy, draw on thework of Hase and his colleagues (Davis & Hase, 1999; Hase & Kenyon, 2000), whonote that learning is contingent on a range of life experiences. Moreover, educatorscan only guide the formation of ideas, not force feed the ideas of others (Findlay,2002; Coughlan, 2004). This differs from most models of pedagogy where the peda-gogue (teacher) assumes ‘taken for granted’ authority and control over what will belearned and where that learning will take place.

Ashton and Newman (2006) also cite the work of Knowles (1970, 1984), whorecognised the fundamental differences in the way children and adults learn andwhose work on andragogy revolutionised ways of thinking about adult learning. Whileandragogy today is applied to learner-focused education for people of all ages, thework of Hase and his colleagues on heutagogy or self-determined learning hasemerged as a new paradigm. Heutagogy, from the Greek ‘self’, places the responsibil-ity for knowledge appropriation very clearly with the learner. Underpinning thisnotion is Rogers’ (n.d.) hypothesis which promotes the idea of relationship in teach-ing. He says that:

1. We cannot teach another person directly; we can only facilitate his/her learning.2. The structure and organization of the self appears to become more rigid under

threat and to relax its boundaries when completely free from threat.3. The educational situation which most effectively promotes significant learning is

one in which a) threat to the self of the learner is reduced a minimum, and b)differentiated perception of the field of experience is facilitated.


This suggests that when teachers relinquish absolute control of what, where, how andwhen information is given, the threat to the learner is reduced, facilitating more effec-tive learning than traditional pedagogies allow. It is heutagogy, therefore, which ismore likely to facilitate the skills and dispositions of the twenty-first-century learnerand encourage development of the complex array of attributes required for today’sworkplace. For the teacher educators at UWS this meant that students’ capabilitiesneeded to be developed, not just their skills and knowledge. Ford (cited in Hase &Kenyon, 2000) argues that this occurs best through a process of ‘knowledge sharingrather than knowledge hoarding’ (p. 2), where students’ and teachers’ life experiencesare used to filter information to develop new understandings relevant for particularwork contexts. The heutagogy revolution is driven by new technologies which makeglobal knowledge readily accessible for all learners.

Using heutagogy at UWS

In the early childhood teacher education programmes at UWS, the use of flexible andblended heutagogy not only reduced students’ attendance at university to two daysper week, but engaging online with other students and searching for information rele-vant to their course encouraged them to take personal responsibility for what andwhen they learned. Their inquiries took them into unknown areas, helped themdevelop new interests and challenged their use and understanding of information andcommunications technologies (ICTs).

In recognition of the academic challenges traditionally faced by Diploma-levelgraduates at university, a compulsory four-day orientation programme was held at thecommencement of the first semester. Beder’s (1997) research into the social andacademic integration of first-year students has clearly demonstrated the value ofpreparing students for the rigors of university. In the case of students who have previ-ously studied at technical institutions, this is particularly important. During the orien-tation the rationale for using flexible and blended heutagogy and the importance ofstudents taking responsibility for their own knowledge creation were discussed.University-level expectations regarding academic literacies were outlined and variouslevels of intensive ongoing support were offered. Several former students who hadagreed to act as mentors for the new group were in attendance.

In week one, students and lecturers met face to face. This provided the opportunityto clarify previously given information and to address students’ concerns. Duringtutorials, geographically positioned small-scale working groups were establishedwithin larger tutorial groups to facilitate students’ support of one another. Thereafter,face-to-face lectures and tutorials occurred fortnightly, alternating with online units.Online units embedded information with quizzes, questions for discussion, links toarticles or images and readings to download for building personal knowledge.Students were encouraged to communicate frequently with members of theirgeographical support groups to develop friendships and to share information andconcerns. Students could email staff with concerns, but they were also expected to tryto sort out issues between themselves; to take responsibility for their own learning.


One desired outcome of the implementation of flexible and blended heutagogy wasto increase students’ learning and improve retention rates (Ashton & Newman, 2006),while sustaining knowledge creation in a comprehensive and cost-effective manner.Mindful of students’ need to work and the complexity of their lives, it was importantthat the learning environment was conducive to their success. As Richards (2005), ina report entitled ‘Retaining Non-traditional Students in Higher Education’, cited in theGuardian, 7 June, says, ‘It is not necessarily appropriate to try to change students to fitinto a traditional student box… . We need to build strategies into our institutions thatbetter fit the students we have, to support their retention and success.’ The strategiesdeveloped by the academic team at UWS were created with this purpose in mind.

Methodology

As part of an ongoing programme of research investigating the perceptions of allstakeholders (students, academics, field staff, employer groups) involved in thereframing of the early childhood teacher education courses at UWS, this investigationis concerned with the experience of flexible and blended heutagogy from the student’sperspective. Others involved in the broader research have already:

1. explored the competing priorities in students’ lives (study, work, family, culturalactivities) (Ashton & Elliott, 2007);

2. investigated students’ perceptions of flexible and blended approaches to learningand their knowledge and use of ICTs (Elliott & Ashton, 2005);

3. explored early childhood centre directors’ and employer groups’ capabilities withICTs and their willingness to support their employees’ or potential employees’university experience (e.g. with time off for study or the use of the Internet atwork) (Arthur, 2005; Beecher, 2005);

4. examined in depth the research about new pedagogies, online and e-learninginitiatives (Ashton & Newman, 2006);

5. conducted evaluative research using qualitative methods to generate rich descrip-tions of the phenomena under investigation (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).

The process was fully supported by the Ethics Department of the university and datawere obtained through the use of:

● Surveys which dealt with issues around (a) the complexities of students’ lives, (b)their familiarity with the use of ICTs, (c) their ability to access and download mate-rials online, (d) their impressions of online learning, (e) what they enjoyed mostand least about flexible and blended learning and (f) how they approached self-directed learning;

● Written responses to questions posted online as part of their coursework related toindividual units. These displayed the depth of inquiry and the thoughtfulness ofstudents’ responses;

● Focus groups with students at the end of the intensive orientation, midway throughthe semester and with those interested in discussing their perceptions of flexible


and blended heutagogy and its impact on their busy lives, at a deeper level, at theend of semester;

● Online records from the web-based platform which indicated the frequency of eachstudent’s involvement in e-learning;

● Anecdotal information gathered during tutorials, general conversation or moreformal interviews with students about their studies.

The distribution of surveys occurred in face-to-face lecture times, although participa-tion was voluntary. Of around 110 students, there were 64 (59%) responses to thesurveys. One hundred per cent of the students posted written responses to questionsonline, although the depth of inquiry and the thoughtfulness of these varied markedly.Similarly, the frequency of responses across the semester varied, with some studentsinteracting with the website only once or twice, while others made 60 or 70 hits.

The focus groups attracted the greatest interest amongst students, with two beingheld after the orientation session and one each in mid-semester and at the end ofsemester. Approximately 12 students participated in each of these groups. Students’responses were audio recorded and then transcribed.

Analysis involved the collation of survey and focus-group data, transcribed notesfrom formal and informal discussions and students’ responses to questions anddiscussions online. All data were coded and assessed for common themes by tworesearchers independently. Coder reliability was high. Analysis made it possible todetermine the quality of students’ interactions, and the depth and perceptiveness oftheir learning in the units. It allowed the researchers to ascertain how students weremanaging to study amid the complexities of their lives and to gain some understand-ing of the benefits and challenges associated with allowing students to take responsi-bility for their own learning and knowledge creating in a flexible and blended teachingenvironment. A number of themes emerged from the data. These included students’favourable perceptions of:

● face to face, online work and collaboration;● the use of hyperlinks and weblinks;● promoting understanding;● anonymity and keeping ‘face’;● flexibility of learning;● personal learning, taking responsibility,

as well as the challenges for staff and students alike associated with flexible andblended heutagogy.

Results

Favourable perceptions

The results of the use of flexible and blended heutagogy have been mixed. Generallythere has been overwhelming support for the flexibility that e-learning offers and forthe continued emphasis on the social processes of learning maintained in the blending


of e-learning and face-to-face modes. This is consistent with the literature over severalyears which demonstrates that while both approaches have their strengths and weak-nesses, the synergy effects when used in combination clearly outweigh the isolatedbenefits of one approach over the other (Grützner & Bunse, 2002; Goodyear, 2005).The results also highlight the challenges for students, and therefore for academics. Asan evaluative tool, this research has informed the design and implementation processas staff continue to plan workable and equitable solutions for early childhood teachertraining in the years ahead.

Face to face, online work and collaboration

Most students indicated a preference for the continuance of some face-to-face classeseven when all units were eventually offered online. Typical of many was the remarkthat ‘face to face discussions in class support the independent learning occurring throughonline work’. Students also loved the online work, however, saying: ‘you can take yourtime to complete the work’, ‘its good to learn in your own environment, in your own time’and it ‘allowed us time to rethink and reframe our understandings’.

Luke (1998) remarks on the constraints and opportunities of blended learning,noting that while face-to-face teaching is merely another tool, it ‘persists because it isa simple, resilient and ubiquitous operating system accepted almost universally as atechnology despite its many intrinsic flaws’ (p. 7). Of online learning, Luke (1998,p. 7) says that ‘while it can promote alienating experiences’, it is also conducive toenhanced ‘communicative outcomes for human interaction’, and is an effective vehi-cle for accessing vast amounts of information quickly and efficiently. Many studentscommented on the communicative aspects of the online environment. They said: ‘itwas good to share and express ideas and opinions’, ‘you could ask questions and get broaddiscussion straight away’, and ‘there was a good support system from other students’.

The use of hyperlinks and weblinks

The ability to find information quickly online was valued greatly by students. Thehyperlinks embedded in online units enabled easy and swift access to examples andother supporting documentation. They found the hyperlinks ‘useful because theyrelated so well to concepts being taught’, they made it ‘easy to access information related toset tasks’. Students also ‘liked the images and websites which were easily accessible’ andthey ‘enjoyed doing web-based tasks including games’.

Promoting understanding

Of greater interest than a simple appreciation of how students can interact, however,and even access information, is the way that computer-mediated communicationscan nurture student involvement and initiative, lead to higher commitment and crit-ical thinking and generate ideas not always facilitated in face-to-face environments(McConnell, 2002). Students mentioned that online material was ‘really relevant and


promoted critical thinking and analysis’, ‘it made us look at some things differently’, ‘alreadyI can see different knowledges emerging’ and ‘when given new skills you view things from aconceptual viewpoint and I now look at things differently’. Others said that ‘shared discus-sion was a positive learning tool’, ‘interactions with peers were valuable and helped us gaina different perspective’ and ‘gaining others’ points of view [on images] was so useful’.

Some students viewed the online discussions as a checking mechanism. Oneremarked that ‘discussions were really useful and it was good to see everyone’s responses tosee if you were on the right track’; however, another said that she ‘wanted feedback [fromtutors] on online postings’. Others were less impressed by the work of their peers, stat-ing, ‘we cannot trust our peers’ responses’ and ‘some students are using the discussion boardas chat rooms rather than for work’.

Anonymity and keeping ‘face’

An additional benefit to working online for many students was the anonymity thatsuch an environment provided them. Although learning is social in nature, humanactivity must be also contextualised in terms of the relationship between Bourdieu’s(1991) habitus and cultural field. For many students, especially those for whomEnglish is a second language and whose cultural expression gives them little capital inan English-dominant, vocally expressive classroom, online learning allows them toparticipate more fully than in a face-to-face environment. Students commented,saying, ‘I prefer writing online for shy people—online addresses individual learning styles’,‘it’s easier to contribute if you are shy’ and ‘it was good, much easier to express my ideas overthe internet’. It would seem, then, that in what is still a social environment conduciveto stimulating learning, interactive collaborative discovery can be achieved, and infact may work better for some students than face-to-face environments alone.

Flexibility of learning

Time management, flexibility and the ability to retain some form of employment wereimportant for students. One student said, ‘my computer crashed one day but I was ableto do the work the next day’, and another enjoyed ‘doing things at [my] own pace’. Othercomments included, ‘You can do it [online work] at your own convenience which allowsfor work as well’, ‘can work at any time, even 1.00am’, ‘can access information quickly andefficiently’ and ‘allows students to maintain employment’.

Heutagogy

In preparing students for twenty-first-century workplace and learning environments,teacher education programmes at UWS facilitate their engagement with learning inways that are both relevant and unique to each student. Asking students to takeresponsibility for ‘how’, ‘where’ and ‘when’ they choose to learn assumes a degree ofmaturity and motivation on their part. Allowing them to select ‘what’ information tochoose and believing that the rationale for their choice, or ‘why’ they choose certain


information to explore, is an altogether different matter and yet, as Ashton andNewman (2006) have said, teacher-controlled learning is no longer, if indeed it everwas, appropriate for today’s learners.

Bangura (2005) notes that heutagogy or self-directed learning helps studentsdevelop confidence and competence, and to question interpretations of reality differ-ent from their own. This differentiates heutagogy from more traditional pedagogies.While traditional methods generate power at the hands of teachers and create passiveand dependent learners in compulsory learning environments, where they are receiv-ing transmitted knowledge (Bangura, 2005), heutagogy places the power in the handsof the learner and looks to a future where knowing how to learn will be a fundamentaleducational skill (Ashton & Newman, 2006).

Personal learning, taking responsibility

Examples of students taking responsibility for their own knowledge creating wereevident in comments such as, ‘it was good to be able to choose images of particular interestwhich may have differed from those chosen by others’ and ‘I liked the way that images linkedto different sites, that we could view different things and then write about them, to voice ouropinions and then comment on them’. Others said of the way information was given, ‘weare building life skills’, ‘the work has been self-initiating and I have loved discussing topicswith other students’ and one of the good things has been ‘becoming aware of one’s ownunderstanding and learning’.

Flexible and blended heutagogy encourages the production and collaborativeflow of knowledge through diffuse and distributed networks (Singh, 2003). Heuta-gogy defines the role of educators more clearly as knowledge brokers linking andsharing ‘migratory knowledge’ with ‘embedded knowledge’ (Singh, 2003) incommunities of practice, rather than knowledge givers or knowledge transmitters.In the online environment in the early childhood teacher education programmes atUWS, as well as the geographically determined small working groups and thelarger face-to-face tutorials, knowledge is shared amongst students and universityeducators alike.

The challenges

Challenges for students

In 1997, Beder found that attrition amongst students could be attributed essentiallyto lack of social and academic integration. The intensive workshop prior to thecommencement of the semester and the establishment of geographically linked workgroups to encourage social interaction were created to support student retention. Asthe Diploma graduates have traditionally struggled with academic tasks at university,however, partnerships with the Learning Support Unit were also created and ongoinghelp was embedded into content modules. Whilst there has been no research to dateon the rate of attrition amongst our current cohort, uncollected assignments from


early in the semester suggest that academic challenges may have been a contributingfactor for those who chose to discontinue their studies. Elliott (2002) found that thereasons behind student attrition were far from simple, however, and could rarely beattributed to lack of social or academic integration alone. She found that the complex-ities of life, which included poverty, domestic violence and family responsibilities,were significant factors in whether students completed their degrees.

Whilst student attrition is a concern, there are also challenges faced by the continu-ing students. Many are motivated to learn, but find the standard of university workvery high and far more demanding than their previous studies. Although many saidthat lessons online and in class were ‘clear and succinct and easy to understand’, and that‘readings online were easy to access and allowed us to concentrate on learning, rather thanfind readings’ other students were less motivated to learn. They indicated that therewas ‘too much reading’, ‘too much work to do considering other readings and assignments[for other units] ’, ‘too much asked of us’. Some said ‘I want all online or all in class, I donot want to have to research or go to other sites to learn’.

Students’ ability to access information online and the frustrations associated withonline learning were other challenges. Comments focusing on these issues included,‘can’t open [the weblinks]’, ‘there are problems linking to website’, ‘hard to access hyper-links’, ‘need to open too many links at one time’ and ‘had difficulty accessing PowerPointlectures’. For some, the cost and speed of online learning was a problem. Students had‘slow download connections’ and ‘large download space [was required] which [took] a longtime to do work’, making ‘discussions very expensive’.

Therefore, while all workload expectations (online and face to face) for the unitshad been outlined prior to the commencement of the course, some students wereunprepared for such a high level of research and academic writing. Moreover, somestudents’ access to a computer outside the university was restricted, and this madethe online components of their course more challenging. The Greater WesternSydney region, the area in which UWS is located, is amongst the least economicallyadvantaged areas of Sydney. Students from this region are usually the first membersof their families to have been to university—in some instances, the first to have anytertiary training at all. Cost is a factor in purchasing and upgrading computer facilitiesfor online work. Many students are dependent on their families for facilitatingcomputer and Internet services, which presupposes that they have the finances andthe motivation to do so. Ashton and Elliott (2007) found that while some familieswere supportive of students’ studying and indeed held great expectations for them,other families were not supportive, especially where there were cultural issuesinvolved.

Challenges for academic staff

This research has been valuable as a mechanism of review and to address issues ofconcern prior to the introduction of more units of work in flexible and blended modein the future. Students indicated that there were ambiguities in the instructionallanguage used in online sessions. For example, they questioned what ‘think about’


actually meant. Were students to just think, to think in preface to an action, or towrite about their thoughts? Ambiguities also related to dates and instructions abouthow, where and when activities should be completed. Requests were made for discus-sion boards to be held open longer, and for the inclusion of full web addresses ratherthan hyperlinks which do not always open. While heutagogy is about taking personalresponsibility and self-directed learning, initial support for this process, especiallywith students who are unfamiliar with academia and are challenged by ICTs, is vitalto its overall success.

Adopting a flexible and blended heutagogy for units in early childhood teachereducation programmes at UWS has moved the academic team philosophically, chal-lenged taken-for-granted assumptions about how and why education is effected inAustralia and forced it to reflect on its teaching methodologies. The preparation ofmaterials for e-learning, and responding to students’ online work, has been more timeconsuming than ever possibly imagined. Yet Burge (1994, p. 10) discusses the impor-tance of the online tutor, noting the need for ‘fast and relevant technical help, timelyand individualised content-related messages and feedback, with, if possible, summa-ries of discussion and guidance about resources’ and ongoing support. How well thissits with expectations associated with heutagogy needs further discussion. In theinterim, as students and staff alike feel their way in an ICT-dominated world, supportis essential.

In summary

As Bang (2006) has indicated, the integration of the worldwide web through theInternet has been successful in almost every area of society, and therefore similarexpectations have been levelled at education. He goes on to note, however, thatcontent and services need to be contextualised for local needs and cultures and thattechnology alone cannot deliver educational success. Whilst early childhood teachereducation at UWS has been transformed by technology, it has chosen a flexible andblended approach to learning rather than pursuing an exclusive e-learning environ-ment for its students, given their unique social, cultural, educational and geographicalcircumstances. The cohort which has been the subject of this research has uniquestrengths, but faces particular challenges which must be addressed if students are tobe retained. While students manage the competing priorities in their lives, the use offlexible and blended, heutagogical models of knowledge creating allows them to dealwith the real issues of work, family and study while developing the attributes neededfor today’s world.

Overall, this research shows that blended learning modes using heutagogy or self-directed learning principles are enjoyable and preferred by most students in spite ofthe challenges they face with respect to technology and academic literacies. Studentsare able to save time with the right equipment and can create new global knowledgesand deepen existing understandings in the ‘best of both worlds’, as they engage incollaborative online and face-to-face learning environments. The flexibility of learn-ing in this manner allows students to juggle the balls of their complex lives, while


helping to develop the dispositions, knowledge and skills required of learners andemployees in the twenty-first century.

References

Arthur, L. (2005) Reconceptualising early childhood courses to meet the changing demands ofstudents and early childhood settings, paper presented at Early Childhood Australia confer-ence, Brisbane, Australia, September.

Ashton, J. & Elliott, R. (2007) Study, work, rest and play: juggling the priorities of students’ lives,Australian Journal of Early Childhood 32(2), 15–22.

Ashton, J. & Newman, L. (2006) An unfinished symphony: 21st century teacher education usingknowledge creating heutagogies, British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(6), 825–840.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2004) Australian social trends: education and training.Available online at www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf

Bang, J. (2006) E-learning reconsidered. Have e-learning and virtual universities met the expecta-tions? Available online at http://www.elearningeuropa.info

Bangura, A. K. (2005) Ubuntugogy: an African educational paradigm that transcends pedagogy,andragogy, ergonagy and heutagogy. Available online at http://wwwfindarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200510/ai_n15641218/print

Beder, S. (1997) Addressing the issues of social and academic integration for first year students. Adiscussion paper. Available online at http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec97/beder1.htm

Beecher, B. (2005) Beyond the fridge door. Moving early childhood pedagogies into new times:issues, challenges and potentials, paper presented at European Early Childhood EducationalResearch Association conference, Dublin, Ireland, 31 August–3 September.

Bourdieu, P. (1991) Outline of a theory of practice (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).Bright, P., Schirato, T. & Yell, S. (2000) Communication metaliteracies and tertiary graduates,

Australian Journal of Communication, 27(2), 99–110.Burge, E. (1994) Learning in computer conferenced contexts: the learners’ perspective, Journal of

Distance Education. Available online at http://cade.athabascau.ca/vol9.1/burge.htmlCarman, J. M. (2002) Blended learning design: five key ingredients. Available online at http://

knowledgenet.com/pdf/Blended%20Learning%20Design_1028.PDFCoughlan, R. (2004) From the challenge to the response. BITE Project conference proceed-

ings.Darab, S. (2004) Time and study: open foundation female students’ integration of study with

family, work and social obligations, Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 44(3), 327–353.Davis, L. & Hase, S. (1999) Developing capable employees: the work activity briefing, Journal of

Workplace Learning, 11(8), 298–303.Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (Eds) (1994) Handbook of qualitative research (Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage).Elliott, A. (2002) Factors affecting first year students’ decisions to leave university, paper

presented at: The 6th Pacific Rim Conference on the First Year in Higher Education: ChangingAgendas ‘Te Ao Hurihuri’, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 8–10 July.Available online at http://www.qut.edu.au/talss/fye/papers02.htm

Elliott, R. & Ashton, J. (2005) Unpublished focus group data from blended learning research.Findlay, J. (2002) Learning in teams using collaborative tools that scaffold facilitation, knowledge

creation and thinking skills, Learning Technology, 4(1). Available online at http://lttf.ieee.org/learn_tech/issues/january2002/index. html 5.

Goodyear, P. (2005) Educational design and networked learning: patterns, pattern languages anddesign practice, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 21(1), 82–101.

Grützner, I & Bunse, C. (2002) Teaching object-oriented design with UML—a blended learningapproach. Accepted for publication at the ECOOP workshop, Tools and Environments forLearning Object-Oriented Concepts, Malaga, Spain, 11 June.


Hase, S. & Kenyon, C. (2000) From andragogy to heutagogy, ultiBASE publication. Availableonline at http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/dec00/hase2.htm

Kell, P., Shore, S. & Singh, M. (Eds) (2004) Adult education@21st century (New York, Peter Lang).Kember, D. (1999) Integrating part-time study with family, work and social obligations, Studies in

Higher Education, 24(1), 109–124.Knowles, M. (1970) The modern practice of adult education: andragogy versus pedagogy (New York,

Associated Press).Knowles, M. (1984) The modern practice of adult education: from pedagogy to andragogy (New York,

Cambridge Books).Luke, T. (1998) Digital discourses, on-line classes, electronic documents: developing new univer-

sity technocultures, paper presented at Learning Online ‘98: Building the Virtual University,Hotel Roanoke, Roanoke, VA, 18–21 June. Available online at http://ultibase.rmit.edu.au/Articles/oct98/luke1.htm

Marsh, J. (2001) How to design effective blended learning. Available online at http://www.brandonhall.com/public/execsums/execsum_blended.pdf

McConnell, D. (2002) The experience of collaborative assessment in e-learning, Studies inContinuing Education, 24(1), 73–92.

McDonald, B., Stuckey, B., Noakes, N. & Nyrop, S. (2005) Breaking down learner isolation: Howsocial network analysis informs design and facilitation for online learning, paper presented atthe Annual Meeting of AERA, Montreal.

Ogunsiji, O. & Wilkes, L. (2004/5) Managing family life while studying: single mothers’ livedexperience of being students in a nursing program, Contemporary Nurse, 18, 108–123.

Richards, H. (2005) When life’s already complicated enough, The Guardian, Tuesday 7 June.Available online at http://education.guardian.co.uk/students/maturestudents/story

Rogers, C. R. (n.d.) Carl Rogers, core conditions and education. Available online at www.infed.org/thinkers/et-rogers.htm

Singh, H. (2003) Building effective blended learning programs, Issues of Educational Technology,43(6), 51–54.

Warrilow, P. & Fisher, K. (2002) Early childhood teachers and qualified staff shortage. Families atWork: Social Policy Research Centre.

Documents

Juggling the balls—study, work, family and play: student perspectives on flexible and blended heutagogy