Flexible T-And-L Impact Report

THE IMPACT ON STUDENTS
OF FLEXIBLE TEACHING
AND LEARNING
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA
REPORT
Prepared for
The University of Tasmania
by
Enterprise Marketing & Research Services Pty. Ltd.

60, Main Road, Moonah 7009
November 2003
Contents
Key Findings of the Evaluation 1
1. Introduction 6
1.1 Flexible Teaching and Learning 6
1.2 Research Methods 8
1.3 The Students Interviewed 11
1.4 Structure of the Report 11
2. Students Who Have Not Used Flexible Teaching and Learning 12
3. Profile of the Students Using Flexible Teaching and Learning 14

3.1 Student Situation 14
3.2 Years spent at the University of Tasmania 16
4. Overall Satisfaction with Flexible Teaching and Learning 17

4.1 Overall Satisfaction with Flexible Teaching 17
4.2 Overall Satisfaction with the University’s Approach in Encouraging
Flexible Teaching and Learning 19
5. Satisfaction with Specific Aspects of Flexible Teaching 20
6. Outcomes and Achievements 24

6.1 Benefits from Flexible Teaching and Learning 24
6.2 Performance Under Flexible Teaching and Learning 25
6.3 Suitability of Assessment Methods 26
7. Access and Participation 28

7.1 Ease of Access 28
7.2 Additional Costs 30
7.3 Financial Benefits 31
7.4 Improved Opportunities for Study 32
7.5 Influences on the Enrolment Decision 32
7.6 Satisfaction with Access Arrangements 35
7.7 Access to Computers and the Web 36
7.8 Students’ Use of Resources Offered in the Unit 37
7.9 Effects on the Way in Which Students Study 38
7.10 Power Outages 39
8. Conclusions 40
Appendix – The Questionnaire 42

1
Key Findings of the Evaluation
In recent years, the University of Tasmania has progressively moved to

implement flexible teaching and learning methods and systems. It has
responded to a number of influences including the long standing needs
of students who live some distance from major campuses, managing
teaching delivery to the Hobart and Launceston campuses and the North
West Centre, the availability of on-line technology and self-paced
learning techniques and the opportunity to offer attractive learning
alternatives in an increasingly competitive higher education environment.
In doing so it also recognises the family and work commitments of
students.
Purpose of the The purpose of this Evaluation has been to assess the impact on
research
students of the University’s flexible teaching and learning approaches
with respect to access, participation, achievement and satisfaction.
Flexible teaching and learning involves delivery in a number of forms.

For the purposes of this Evaluation a distinction has been made between
the following forms.
Table 1 – Flexible Delivery Methods Used for the Evaluation
Delivery Description of the Delivery Method

Method
Fully On-line The unit is taught entirely on-line.
Web dependent The unit is taught face to face but students are required to access
content resources and/or use communication tools on-line such as
discussion boards.
Web Supported The unit is taught face to face but supplementary resources are
available on the web.
Video- The unit uses videoconferencing as one of its teaching methods.
conferencing
Audio- The unit uses audioconferencing as one of its teaching methods.
conferencing
Flexible The opportunity is provided to attend some classes out of normal
scheduling teaching hours eg weekend blocks, summer schools etc.
Resource based The student is required to study independently using study resources
teaching and such as CDs, books of readings etc.
learning
Flexible access Lectures are available on audio or video tape from the Library or are
streamed from the web for access at any time.
1003 students drawn from units that have used flexible delivery methods
were interviewed by telephone in September 2003. 927 of the students
were currently enrolled in at least one unit using flexible methods.
University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

Flexible Teaching and Learning at the University of Tasmania
October 2003
2
Overall Satisfaction with Flexible Delivery

Satisfaction with The general level of satisfaction with the way in which particular units
flexible delivery
teaching had been taught was quite high. 31% were very satisfied and 93% said
they were “very satisfied” or “quite satisfied” with the way their units had
been taught.
Endorsement of There was also endorsement of the University’s approach in encouraging

University policy
flexible teaching and learning methods. 36% were “very satisfied” with
the University’s approach and another 56% were “quite satisfied”.
Strong support for There was strong support for the continuation of flexible delivery
the continuation of
flexible delivery methods. 43% would like to see all units delivered by flexible methods
methods and 53% favour a mixture of units delivered by flexible and more
traditional methods. Only 4% do not want any units delivered by flexible
methods.
Satisfaction with Specific Aspects of Flexible Teaching
Students’ satisfaction levels with a number of specific aspects of flexible

teaching were assessed. The 6 elements in Table 2 were chosen
because they were considered to contribute to student satisfaction.
Table 2 – Average Percentage Satisfaction Scores for Particular

Aspects of Teaching (percentage satisfaction score)
Statement about Flexible Teaching % of

students
agreeing
The lecturer appeared competent in using the particular form of flexible 74
delivery chosen.
The teaching approach was equitable to all students studying this unit. 73
The lecturer adequately prepared the students to study the unit using 67
flexible delivery methods.
An adequate level of support is provided in areas such as training, trouble 66
shooting and technical support.
The lecturer adequately prepared students in how to use the technologies 65
required.
The rationale of the teaching by flexible delivery was explained to 63
students.
Satisfaction scores were somewhat higher amongst students taking units

“fully on-line” or using videoconferencing.

October 2003
3
Outcomes and Achievements
Benefits of flexible Two thirds of the students believe they have benefited from flexible
delivery
delivery methods compared with traditional methods.
Three quarters mentioned the greater access to resources at their

disposal, two thirds mentioned the independence it conferred on them
and others referred to greater computer and web skills, greater access to
lecturers and greater access to other students.
Students were almost evenly divided as to whether they had performed

better under flexible methods, but only 6% thought they had performed
worse under flexible method delivery.
Though the numbers are fairly small only about a quarter of those using
videoconferencing thought that they had done better as a result.
21% found the assessment methods that were adopted to be “very

suitable” and 71% said they were “quite suitable”.
Most assessment Common criticisms of assessment methods used in flexible delivery are
criticisms also apply
to traditional similar to those also received about traditional teaching. They include a
methods desire for more feedback after assessment, the need for less weight on
the final exams and the abolition of penalties for late submission. The
latter was, at least linked by some to technical system failures. Some
students think that a lack of computer skills penalises them.
Access to Flexible Delivery

Few consider The great majority of students, irrespective of the flexible delivery
access difficult
method they experienced consider access problems minimal. 93% rated
access as “very easy” or “quite easy”.
Most were satisfied with the access arrangements made by the

University. Only 8% were dissatisfied.
50% of the students were unable to identify any difficulties or barriers

they had faced in being able to use flexible methods.

October 2003
4
Computer related Most commonly identified difficulties related to computer, server or

issues are the
principal barrier to technical problems” (11%) or “limited access to computers, labs or the
access internet” (also 11%).
A second group of issues related to the way in which material and the
teaching was managed in a unit and this included keeping information up
to date, face to face contact with lecturers and the student’s own lack of
technical skills.
Printing (51%) and internet costs (31%) were identified as the most
significant specific costs associated with flexible delivery followed by
stationery costs (20%). 28% of students were unable to identify any
additional costs.
Power outages Power outages can be a problem. About a quarter of the students said
affect study
that outages “very seriously” or “quite seriously” affected their ability to
study.
More than a third Overall some 37% of the students experiencing flexible delivery said they
have been
disadvantaged have been disadvantaged financially by the delivery method though only
financially about 6% considered themselves as “very much disadvantaged”.
Some benefit from About three-quarters reported no financial benefits from flexible
travel savings and
work opportunities teaching. Those who did pointed to travel savings (15%), benefits with
respect to their work opportunities (8%) and reduced printing costs
(3%).
83% were very satisfied or quite satisfied about the amount of

information they received when they enrolled about how the unit would
be delivered.
Flexible methods do The great majority of students (83%) said that the availability of flexible
not influence the
enrolment of the methods had not influenced their overall enrolment. Only about a third
majority said that the way in which the unit was taught had a bearing on their
decision to enrol in a particular unit.

October 2003
5
Over half said they needed the unit and the delivery method had no
impact on their decision.
About a third of the students said that the method employed made the
unit or course more attractive to them when they were enrolling. Two
thirds said it made no difference to them. Only 2% said it made the unit
less attractive.
Some chose a unit for quite specific reasons related to the method, such
as being able to balance work and or home responsibilities with their
studies, distance or convenience.
Opportunities for Irrespective of whether flexible delivery influenced unit selection, 70% of
study are enhanced
students said that the flexible learning has provided them with
opportunities that would not otherwise have been possible through
traditional methods.
Around two thirds of students say that the adoption of flexible teaching
methods has influenced the way in which they study. The changes, or
benefits, included the enhancement of lectures and the opportunity for
more productive study at home.
Effects on Half say the flexible methods have made little difference to how much
interaction with
other students they interact with other students and another 30% say that the
interaction has increased.
More in the North More students in the North West found that flexible teaching had
West
increased their interaction with other students.
The culture is more Half of the students said that flexible learning had provided them with a
collaborative
more collaborative culture compared with 17% who found it less
collaborative. Students in the North West and the North found the
culture more collaborative than did those in the South.

October 2003
6
Section One – Introduction

1.1 Flexible Flexible teaching and learning involves delivery in a number of forms.
teaching and
The University recognises 12 variants of flexible delivery ranging from
learning
fully on-line teaching and web based studies to flexible scheduling. Two
flexible delivery methods “flexible pathways” and “workplace learning”
have been excluded from this Evaluation. A further simplification of
delivery types has also been used in this study and the delivery methods
reduced to 8 as shown in Table 3.
Table 3 – Flexible Delivery Methods Used for the Evaluation
Delivery Description of the Delivery Method

Method
Fully On-line The unit is taught entirely on-line.
Web dependent The unit is taught face to face but students are required to access
content resources and/or use communication tools on-line such as
discussion boards.
Web Supported The unit is taught face to face but supplementary resources are
available on the web.
Video- The unit uses videoconferencing as one of its teaching methods.
conferencing
Audio- The unit uses audioconferencing as one of its teaching methods.
conferencing
Flexible The opportunity is provided to attend some classes out of normal
scheduling teaching hours eg weekend blocks, summer schools etc.
Resource based The student is required to study independently using study resources
teaching and such as CDs, books of readings etc.
learning
Flexible access Lectures are available on audio or video tape from the Library or are
streamed from the web for access at any time.
The purpose of the evaluation has been to assess the impact on students
of the University’s flexible teaching and learning approaches with respect
to access, participation, achievement and satisfaction.
In recent years, the University of Tasmania has progressively moved to

implement flexible teaching and learning methods and systems. It has
responded to a number of influences including the long standing needs
of students who live some distance from major campuses, managing
teaching delivery to the Hobart and Launceston campuses and the North
West Centre, the availability of on-line technology and self-paced
learning techniques and the opportunity to offer attractive learning
alternatives in an increasingly competitive higher education environment.
In doing so it also recognises the family and work commitments of
students.

October 2003
7
Flexible teaching methods feature in a significant proportion of the more

than 2000 units it now offers. Some 40% of units appear to be
supported by some form of on-line access. Around 15% of units offer
web dependent teaching whilst another 25% are now web supported.
Twenty per cent of units are resource based, to negligible use of audio
conferencing and full online teaching delivery with no face to face
component.
Currently University records show that there are some 26,000 unit
enrolments in flexible units with many students enrolled in more than 1
unit using flexible teaching and learning delivery methods.
The focus of the evaluation has been on what students think about
flexible teaching and learning in the light of their most recent
experiences. For the most part those teaching and learning experiences
have been linked to their experiences in units and courses where a
particular flexible method has been used in the current semester.
The evaluation has asked them about matters such as access barriers
and costs, participation issues, their performance and their overall
satisfaction compared with more traditional methods of face to face
lectures and tutorials.
This evaluation has involved more than an assessment of each of the

flexible approaches. It has also made an holistic assessment of the
teaching and learning mix.
Whilst information has been collected about the courses and units
students were enrolled for, this particular evaluation has not made any
attempt to assess whether flexible teaching and learning has been
implemented more successfully in any particular subject area.

October 2003
8
1.2 Research The evaluation has involved administering a structured questionnaire by

Methods
telephone to 1003 students who are enrolled in units using flexible
teaching and learning methods. Interviewing took place in the last week
of August and the first week of September. The questionnaire is
reproduced in Appendix A to this Report.
The University identified units that had used flexible delivery methods in
2002 and the flexible delivery method associated with each unit. It also
provided lists of students currently enrolled in these units. From these
lists a random selection of students was made with procedures ensuring
that individual students only appeared on the list once. The information
provided by the University made it possible to set broad targets for 10
categories of flexible teaching based initially on the numbers of current
student enrolments.
Table 4 – Target Samples for Each Flexible Teaching Method
Types of Flexible Delivery Method No of % of Broad % of

contacts contacts Target sample
1. The unit is taught fully online 195 1 30 3

2. Face to face but must use web dependent methods using 6201 24 250 25
communication tools (discussion boards, online)
3. Face to face but must access content resources online 2277 9 90 9
4. Face to face but must use both content resources and 4830 18 180 18
communication tools online
5. WS Web supported Face to face methods but 8319 32 250 25
supplementary materials are available on the web
6. Videoconferencing used as one of the teaching methods 80 4
7. Audioconferencing used as one of the teaching methods 20 4
8. Flexible Scheduling – some classes out of normal hours 4317 17 40 4
weeken blocks, summer schools etc
9. Resource based teaching and learning – have to study 40 4
independently using study resources: CDs readings etc.
10. Flexible access – lectures are available on audio or video 40 4
from library or streamed from the web to access any time
26139 100 1000 100
The purposes in setting such targets were

¾ To reflect the broad distribution of flexible units between the
different methods of flexible delivery using enrolment information as
a basis, and
¾ To provide a sufficient number of responses with respect to each the
different types of flexible delivery method to be able to draw
conclusions.

October 2003
9
Whilst targets have been broadly achieved, 2 factors prevented this from
being fully achieved.
When interviewing began, some of the students were found not to have
accessed any of the flexible delivery methods during the current year,
despite the fact that they were enrolled in units that had been identified
from the previous year as using flexible methods. In the event 76
students were not able to identify with any of the flexible learning
delivery methods in the current year.
Their reasons for not accessing flexible delivery were of interest and are
reported in Section Two.
Students were Secondly, many students have enrolled for a number of units and have
questioned on the
main form of experienced different forms of flexible delivery. It was decided that the
flexible delivery questionnaire needed to be kept to a manageable length and also that
currently
experienced information was more likely to be focused if students were asked
questions about the flexible delivery method they considered to be the
main form they were accessing during the current semester. It was also
decided that as little as possible would be done to “force” the
achievement of quota targets at the expense of denying students the
opportunity to talk about the main method they encountered.
3 web dependent A further practical difficulty was encountered during the interviewing
delivery methods
combined for process. This was that students found it difficult to distinguish between
reporting purposes the 3 variants of web dependent teaching and learning (web dependent
education and communication, education only and communication only).
After discussion it was decided to aggregate these for quota purposes
and within this draft report the 3 web dependent categories have been
aggregated. It is for this reason that reporting throughout the
evaluation relates to 8 rather than 10 delivery methods.

October 2003
10
Table 5 shows the number of students in the original target, the number
interviewed who said they were currently enrolled in and experiencing
each of 8 flexible forms of delivery and the number interviewed with
respect to the main form of flexible delivery they were currently
experiencing.
Table 5 – The Target Numbers, Numbers Enrolled and Number Regarding Each
Flexible Delivery Type as their Main Delivery Type During the Current Semester
Flexible Classification Broad Target Number Number who

Interviewed regarded it
Currently as the Main
Experiencing Method They
this Method* are Using
1. Full On-line 30 103** 28
2. Three Web dependent methods 520 1536 408
3. WS Web supported 250 770 299
4. Videoconferencing 60 188 42
5. Audioconferencing 20 50 5
6. Flexible Scheduling 40 159 44
7. Resource based teaching and learning 40 464 54
8. Flexible access 40 411 47
Not used flexible methods this semester 0 76 76
1020 3758 1003
* students may have been enrolled for more than one of the 3 web dependent methods and other types of flexible
delivery. Hence numbers add to more than the 1003 students interviews.
** students may mistakenly believe a unit is fully online and hence this number may well be overstated.
Leaving aside the 76 students who said they had not experienced any of
the 8 flexible forms in the current semester, the average number of
flexible delivery forms currently being experienced is around 4 when the
3 web dependent forms are counted separately.

October 2003
11
1.3 The Of the 1003 students interviewed,

students
interviewed
¾ 64% were contacted in the South of the State, as defined by the
southern (03) 62 telephone district,
¾ 29% were in Launceston and the North East, (03) 63 telephone
district,
¾ 6% were on the North West Coast or the West Coast (03) 64
telephone district and
¾ 1% were outside Tasmania when they were contacted.
Students who had not experienced flexible teaching and learning in the
current semester were asked their reasons for not doing so. These
reasons are reported in Section Two. Apart from this, no further
questions were put to these students.
More information about the 927 students who completed the

questionnaire is provided in Section 3.
1.4 Structure of The Report has been structured around the following issues,
the Report
Section Two – Reasons for Not Taking Flexible Units

Section Three – Students Taking Flexible Units
Section Four – Overall Satisfaction with Flexible Teaching
Section Five – Satisfaction with Specific Aspects
Section Six – Outcomes and Achievements
Section Seven – Access Issues and Participation
Section Eight – Conclusions.

October 2003
12
Section Two – Students Who Have Not Used

Flexible Teaching and Learning
Of the 76 students who said they had not enrolled in any units that used
flexible teaching methods, 51 were from the South, 24 were from the
North and North East and 1 was a student from the North West.
These students were asked if there were any reasons why they hadn’t
enrolled in any unit that used flexible teaching methods.
In the great majority of cases, the answer given was that the units they
were enrolled in had not used flexible delivery methods during the
current semester.
56 of the 76 students said that all the teaching in their units was only
being delivered on a face to face basis.
All Fine Arts subjects are taught face to face.

Honours is all face to face.
Bachelor of Pharmacy is all face to face.
I am an Honours students. I study independently with no
teacher interaction. Only a supervisor.
Has not been necessary this year yet.

I don’t believe they are available to me.
There is little suggestion that these students made a conscious decision

to avoid units that offered flexible teaching and learning delivery
methods.
I chose courses that interest me and didn’t take into account the
way they were taught or delivered.
I just chose the subjects I needed for my course. I did not

bother to check whether they were, or were not, taught flexibly
when enrolling.

October 2003
13
Only 5 students said they had simply decided not to enrol in units that
used flexible teaching methods, and 4 others were unsure.
I’m doing education and do not find I need it.
I haven’t been to University this year.
There was the option of doing a weekend block, which I decided

not to do and hence have no experience.

October 2003
14
Section Three – Profile of the Students Using Flexible

Teaching and Learning
3.1 Student The 927 students currently experiencing flexible teaching and learning
Situation
delivery methods were asked whether they were full time or part time
students and whether they had full time or part time employment.
Table 6 – Full Time and Part Time Students and their Employment Situation
Situation Number Percentage

N=927
A full time student – not working 396 43
A full time student with part-time employment 321 35
A full time student with full time work 10 1
A full time student with home duties 10 1
A part-time student with full time employment 84 9
A part time student with part time employment 62 7
A part time student with home duties 34 4
A part time student (unspecified) 10 1
Three quarters of the students described themselves as full time

students and of these 44% had a part time job.
Of the part time students 46% had a full time job, 35% had a part time
job and 19% were engaged in home duties.
There are some differences in the types of flexible learning accessed by

students in different situations, as shown in Table 7.

October 2003
15
Table 7 – The Percentage of Part Time and Full Time Students

In Units Using Different Delivery Methods
Delivery method Web Web Flexible Resource Flexible

Full time or Part time Students Depend- Supported Schedul- Based Access
ent ing
% % % % %
A full time student – not 45 49 18 33 40
working
A full time student with part- 39 33 21 22 47
time employment
A full time student with full time 1 1 2 0 0
work
A full time student with home 1 2 0 0 0
duties
A part-time student with full 6 6 36 19 2
time employment
A part time student with part 6 4 18 13 4
time employment
A part time student with home 2 5 5 9 6
duties
A part time student 1 1 0 4 0
(unspecified)
In web-dependent and web-supported units 85% were full time

students. 15% were part-time students.
In contrast, 59% of those accessing “flexible scheduling” and 51% of

those accessing “resource-based” delivery were part-time students.
Some 40% of students from the North West Coast and outside Tasmania
were part-time students compared with around 20% in other parts of the
State.

October 2003
16
3.2 Years at the Figure 1 – The Number of Years Including this One that The
University of Student had been Enrolled at the University of Tasmania
Tasmania
40
35
30
% of students
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 More
Years at the University
35% of students were in their first year at the University and 56% were
in either their first or second year.
3.3 Years in the Figure 2 – The Number of Years Including this One that The
Current Course Student had been Enrolled in the Current Course
50
40
% of students
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 More
Years in the Current Course
44% of students were in their first year of their current course at the
University and 71% were in either their first or second year.

October 2003
17
Section Four – Overall Satisfaction with Flexible Teaching

4.1 Overall The general level of satisfaction with the way in which particular units
satisfaction
have been taught was quite high. 31% were very satisfied and 93% said
with flexible
teaching they were “very satisfied” or “quite satisfied” with the way their units had
been taught.
The percentage that was “very satisfied” ranged from 57% of those
experiencing fully online methods to 23% of those with flexible
scheduling.
The highest levels of dissatisfaction were amongst those experiencing

“flexible scheduling” or taking “web-supported” units. In each case 9%
was either “not very satisfied” or “not satisfied at all”.
They were asked,

In what ways, if any, could the way in which the unit was taught
by flexible delivery have been improved?
Many of the students had no suggestions to make.
The comments and suggestions made by students varied little from one
type of flexible delivery method to another.

October 2003
18
Table 8 – Ways in Which the Teaching Could Have Been Improved in the Unit
Fully On-line More contact with lecturers and tutors

Better communication between students and lecturers
Web dependent More interactive materials – quizzes

Greater access to lecturers
Smaller class groups
Training on how to use the technology
On-line support for difficulties (technical assistance)
Make lecture notes available well before lectures
Lecturers need to know how to use web notes
More information on how flexible learning works
More on-line discussion
More feedback from lecturers
More computers on campus
Have specific tutorial times on the net.
Fuller explanation of all the resources available at the start of the
year
Make WebCT more consistent across the units.
Web Supported Technical support is not adequate

Initial instructions need to be clearer
Improve WebCT
Offer audio recording of lectures to students
More subjects available at the North West Centre
More face to face contact
More on-line assessment
Videoconferencing More one on one contact with lecturers

The layout of the videoconferencing room in Hobart made
teaching really difficult.
Videolinks do not always work
Flexible scheduling More contact with lecturers

Full lecture notes to the web
There always seem to be technical glitches
Resource based Lecturers should advise their consulting hours

teaching and learning More tutorials
Not enough notes on WebCT by lecturers.
Flexible access to More video access eg between Burnie and Launceston

lectures

October 2003
19
4.2 Overall There were also very high levels of satisfaction with the approach the
satisfaction
University was taking by encouraging flexible teaching and learning
with the
University’s methods.
approach in
encouraging
flexible 36% of the students described themselves as “very satisfied” with the
teaching and
University’s approach and another 56% declared themselves “quite
learning
satisfied”. Only 8% were not satisfied in some way.
The percentage that was “very satisfied” ranged from 50% of those
experiencing fully on-line methods to 25% of those with flexible
scheduling.
Strong support for ¾ 43% would like to see all units delivered by flexible methods.
flexible delivery
continuing ¾ 53% of the students see the future involving a mixture of units
delivered in flexible and more traditional methods.and
¾ Only 4% of the students would not like any units to be delivered
flexibly.
Support for this approach
Support for all units being delivered flexibly ranged from 59% of those
experiencing flexible scheduling to 36% of those with web-supported
units.
Support for the present mixture being maintained also varied. Some
60% of those taking web supported subjects would like to see the
current mixture maintained.
A higher proportion of students taking web-supported units appear to

have had more problems with flexible delivery than those who have been
taking web dependent units.
Although only 4% wanted less flexible delivery, 12% of those who

experienced videoconferencing expressed this view.
All in all, however, there was strong support for the continuation of

October 2003
20
Section Five – Satisfaction with Specific Aspects of Flexible

Teaching
Satisfaction with the flexible teaching and learning methods the student
are currently experiencing was investigated by reading them a series of
positive statements and asking them to give the flexible method they had
experienced a score out of 10 where 1 was “strongly disagreed” and 10
was “strongly agreed”.
The statements used were,

¾ An adequate level of support is provided in areas such as training,
trouble shooting and technical support.
¾ The lecturer appeared competent in using the particular form of

flexible delivery chosen.
¾ The lecturer adequately prepared students in how to use the

technologies required.
¾ The lecturer adequately prepared the students to study the unit

using flexible delivery methods.
¾ The rationale of the teaching by flexible delivery was explained to

students.
¾ The teaching approach was equitable to all students studying this

unit.
The average scores out of 10 were converted into a percentage form.

Table 9 reports these average satisfaction scores in percentage form for
all students and for each of the 8 delivery methods.
Table 10 records the percentage of students who gave satisfaction

scores of 8 or more out of 10 for each statement, firstly for all students
and then for each of the 8 delivery methods.

October 2003
21
Table 9 – Average Percentage Satisfaction Scores for Each Delivery Method
Statement All Fully on- Web Web Video Audioconf Flexible Resource Flexible
students line Dependent Supported Confe- erencing scheduling Teach and access to
rencing Learn lectures
An adequate level of support is provided in areas such as training, 66 69 64 67 73 66 68 67 61
The lecturer appeared competent in using the particular form of 74 80 74 73 77 80 78 75 75
The lecturer adequately prepared students in how to use the 65 68 65 65 69 66 63 67 62
The lecturer adequately prepared the students to study the unit using 67 70 66 67 74 68 68 71 65
The rationale of the teaching by flexible delivery was explained to 63 68 63 62 72 54 64 67 59
students.
The teaching approach was equitable to all students studying this 73 72 72 74 77 78 72 74 75
unit.
Table 10 – Percentage of Students Scoring 8, 9 or 10 for Satisfaction with a Delivery Method
Statement All Fully on- Web Web Video Audio Flexible Resource Flexible
students line Dependent Supported Confe- conferenci scheduling Teach and access to
rencing ng Learn lectures
An adequate level of support is provided in areas such as training, 37 39 35 39 48 20 48 37 28
The lecturer appeared competent in using the particular form of 56 68 55 55 60 80 66 54 55
The lecturer adequately prepared students in how to use the 37 43 37 38 38 20 39 35 36
The lecturer adequately prepared the students to study the unit using 37 43 35 35 61 20 38 48 32
The rationale of the teaching by flexible delivery was explained to 35 46 34 34 55 20 34 46 23
students.
The teaching approach was equitable to all students studying this 46 57 54 57 64 40 57 54 53
unit.

October 2003
22
Figure 3 – Satisfaction of Students with 6 Aspects of Flexible Teaching and Learning – All Students
80
70
60
Percentage score
50
40
30
20
10
gy
d
ed
ts
c.
ho
...
et
n
lo
n
m
de
ai
et
no
ng
ng
pl
tu
m
ch
i
ex
in
ls
i
ith
us
te
a
al
e
tr
l
e
na
to
n
us
ud
er
i
io
e
ur
rt
st
to
bl
at
po
ct
ita
to
R
ts
le
p
en
u
Su
s
of
nt
Eq
ud
e
ce
ud
st
en
st
ed
Average % % scoring 8 or more

t
pe
ed
r
pa
om
ar
re
ep
C
pr
er
ur
er
ur
ct
Le
ct
Le

October 2003
23
The elements with the highest overall satisfaction scores were,
“The lecturer appeared competent in using the particular form of flexible

delivery method chosen” (average satisfaction score of 74%), and
“The teaching approach was equitable to all students studying this unit”
(average satisfaction score 73%).
The average satisfaction scores for the other 4 units were in the narrow
range of 63% to 67%.
The second commonly used satisfaction measure is the percentage of

students who gave an element a score of 80%+ (8 or more out of 10).
The elements “The lecturer appeared competent in using the particular

form of flexible delivery method chosen” and “The teaching approach
was equitable to all students studying this unit” also scored higher using
this measure than the other 4 elements.
By and large students taking units “fully on-line” or using

“videoconferencing” recorded higher satisfaction scores than those given
by other students for other delivery methods.
Table 11 – Average Satisfaction Score for the Six Elements

By Region
Region Number of Students Average Satisfaction

Score – 6 elements
North and North East 267 68
North West and West 57 72
South 592 68
Outside Tasmania 8 71
All students 925 68
Average satisfaction is somewhat higher amongst students on the North

West Coast than in either the South or the North.

October 2003
24
Section Six – Outcomes and Achievements
6.1 Benefits Two thirds of the students feel that they have benefited from the flexible
from Flexible
learning methods in the current year compared with traditional methods.
Teaching and
Learning
Table 12 - Benefit of Flexible Learning Compared with Traditional

Methods (% of students)
Delivery Method % who % who did % who said

benefited not benefit it varied
Fully online 61 25 14
Web dependent 65 29 5
Web supported 72 24 5
Video conference 43 52 5
Audio conference 80 0 20
Flexible scheduling 59 32 9
Resource Based Teaching & Learning 69 24 7
Flexible Access to Lectures 81 13 6
Average for All Flexible Methods 67 27 27
A large majority of students taking each of the flexible delivery methods

except videoconferencing said that they benefited from flexible learning
compared with traditional methods.
80% of the students nominating “flexible access to lectures” as their

main flexible teaching method said it was beneficial compared with
traditional methods.
Ways in which Of particular interests were the students’ views on the ways in which
they benefited
they had benefited from flexible learning methods.
compared with
traditional
methods
Three quarters mentioned “greater access to resources” and two thirds
referred to the “independence in learning” that these methods provided.
Other benefits that were mentioned included, “acquired computer and

web skills”, “greater lecturer access” and “greater access to other
students”.

October 2003
25
Table 13. – Ways in Which Students Benefited from Flexible Teaching and
Learning Methods Compared with Traditional Methods
(percentage of students giving a particular response)
Response Percentage
Of Students
Greater access to resources 76
Independence in learning 64
Acquired computer and web skills 23
Greater access to lecturers 15
Greater access to other students 13
Better results and outcomes 1
Courses have to be better organised 1
Increased availability of courses 0
Can continue work under flexible learning 0
No significant regional differences in the benefits were identified.
The two principal benefits “greater access to resources” and

“independence in learning” were identified as important benefits by a
majority of students across the various flexible methods.
6.2 Students were almost evenly divided about whether they had performed
Performances
“better” under flexible teaching methods or “as well” as under more
Under Flexible
Teaching and traditional methods. Few thought their performance was worse than
Learning
under traditional methods.
44% thought they had performed “better” and 42% thought they had
performed “as well” as they do under traditional methods.
Only 6% thought they had done “worse” than under traditional methods
and a further 3% were unsure.
Only 23% using videoconferencing thought they had done better than
under traditional methods.

October 2003
26
6.3 Suitability Students were asked,

of assessment
methods
How suitable were the assessment methods used given the
teaching methods that were adopted? Were they “very
suitable”, “quite suitable”, “not very suitable”, or “not at all
suitable”.
Table 14 - Suitability of Assessment Methods
Suitability of Assessment Methods Percentage of Students

Very suitable 21
Quite suitable 71
Not very suitable 7
Not at all suitable 1
More than 90% of the students found the assessment methods

employed to be either “very suitable” or “quite suitable” for the form of
delivery adopted.
This applied to each of the forms of flexible delivery that was used.
Ways in which A range of suggestions was made about how assessment of web
assessment
dependent units could be improved.
methods could be
improved
In the majority of cases the comments were of a type that is commonly
made about traditional teaching methods and has nothing to do with the
delivery method used.
A frequently encountered comment was that there needed to be more

feedback after assessment.
Another request was that less weight be put on the final exams.
An exception to this was that some students felt that their lack of
computer skills hampered them during assessment.

October 2003
27
Some sought the abolition of penalties for late submission of

assignments and more specifically for leniency when outages occurred.
For others the criteria for assessment could have been clearer.
It is difficult to draw any general conclusions from the suggestions.

Ideally they need to be related to the units the students were studying.

October 2003
28
Section Seven – Access and Participation

7.1 Ease of The length of time it takes for a student to get to their nearest campus
Access
of the University of Tasmania was considered a more relevant indicator
than distance in terms of access to traditional teaching methods.
Overall 44% of the students took less than 15 minutes to get to their
nearest campus and 77% took less than 30 minutes.
7% took more than 1 hour.
48% of those whose main delivery method was “flexible scheduling” take
more than 30 minutes to get to their nearest campus and 32% take
more than 1 hour.
21% of those in the North West took more than an hour to reach their
campus compared with only 4% of those in the South and 7% of those
in the North and North East.
A more general question about access is how easy students have found
it to gain access to the particular type of flexible teaching and learning
method they consider to be their main method.
Overall 56% of students rated access as “very easy” and a further 37%
considered it “quite easy”. There is little difference between the 10
delivery methods with more than 90% rating access very easy or quite
easy for any particular method.
Access difficulties A critical question put to students was,
What difficulties or barriers have you faced using this method of

learning?

October 2003
29
Table 15 – Difficulties or Barriers Faced Using Flexible Learning Methods
Type of Difficulty or Barrier percentage of

students
None 50
Computer, server or technical problems 11
Limited access to computers, labs or the internet 11
Information on the web is not up to date or available when required 4
Not enough face to face contact with lecturers 4
Download speed is too slow 4
Computer illiteracy/inexperience using WebCT 4
Unable to gain direct feedback or ask questions 4
Unable to access from home through different internet hosts 2
Travel – distance from campus 2
Limited access to reference material 2
Not all the lecture notes are on the web 1
Limited access to audio/video tapes 1
Lecturers do not have technical skills to assist 1
Flexible learning allows better time management 1
Software compatibility 1
Technical problems with video link 1
Different formats between subjects -
Printing at University is expensive -
50% of the students found no problems in accessing the main flexible

method they are currently utilising.
The problems encountered fall into 2 main types,

¾ Technical issues that make access difficult, including access to
computers and the competence of the student,
¾ Shortcomings in the support and materials provided for particular
units that reduce the effectiveness of the delivery.
There is some variation with respect to the problems students who were
utilising different forms of flexible delivery encountered. The principal
problems identified for each type are listed in Table 16.

October 2003
30
Table 16 – Principal Difficulties or Barriers Faced

By Students in Accessing Particular Delivery Methods
(percentage of students using each method mentioning a problem)
Method Difficulties and Percentage of Students Encountering Them

Fully On-line Computer problems Access to computers Lack of face to face
11% 11% contact 11%
Web Dependent Computer problems Access to computers Download speed too
13% 12% slow 5%
Web supported Computer problems Access to computers Computer illiteracy
13% 13% 4%
Videoconferencing Computer problems Limited access to Not enough face to
12% reference materials face contact with
7% lecturers 7%
Flexible scheduling Travel – distance Not enough face to
from campus 21% face contact with
lecturers 14%
Resource based Limited access to Not enough face to
Teaching & Learning reference materials face contact with
9% lecturers 9%
Flexible access to Access to computers
lectures 9%
7.2 Additional Students were asked,

Costs
What specific costs have you incurred by studying in this way?
Table 17 – Specific Costs Incurred by Studying Using

Flexible Teaching and Learning Methods
Type of Cost Number Percentage*

Printing 473 51
Internet costs 287 31
None 263 28
Stationery costs 189 20
Computer hardware 74 8
Computer software 57 6
Other 67 7
* as some students have incurred more than 1 type of cost percentages will not add to 100%.

October 2003
31
Printing and internet costs were most often identified as specific study
costs amongst students taking subjects that were web dependent or web
supported. For students who nominated resource-based teaching as
their main method printing and stationery were most often mentioned.
The proportion who reported no specific costs ranged from 48%

(videoconferencing) to 15% (resource based teaching).
Of the 682 students who reported specific costs associated with flexible
learning and teaching, 50 (7%) said that these costs had “very much”
disadvantaged them when using this method of study. A further 310
(46%) said the cost has “somewhat” disadvantaged them.
63% are not The remaining 322 said they were not disadvantaged at all. When these
disadvantaged
financially are added to the 263 that reported “no” specific costs, the conclusion is
that 63% of students are not disadvantaged by any costs they might
incur through the main flexible learning method they are currently using.
There are no significant differences between the various flexible delivery

methods with respect to the proportion of students that feel
disadvantaged by the extra costs they incur.
7.3 Financial We asked,

Benefits
What sorts of financial benefits have you received by studying in

this way?`
74% reported no financial benefits from flexible teaching and learning of

the type they regarded as the main method. The 3 areas where cost
saving was reported were for,
travel costs (14% of students)
work opportunities (8%)
printing 3%
reduced need for textbooks 1%
childcare savings 1%.

October 2003
32
8% of students said they had been very much advantaged by these

financial benefits and another 14% reported some financial advantage.
The others reported either that the financial benefits had not advantaged
them or that no financial benefits could be identified.
7.4 Improved 70% of students said that flexible delivery had provided them with
opportunities
opportunities for study that would not have been possible through
for study
traditional methods. As Table 21 shows there is no significant difference
between the answers given with respect to each of the 10 types of
flexible learning.
Table 21– The Opportunity for Study Provided by Flexible Delivery Methods that
would not have been Possible Using Traditional Delivery Methods
(percentage of students agreeing)
Flexible Delivery Method % of students that say

the method has
provided them with
opportunities
1. Full On-line 86
2. Web dependent 70
3. WS Web supported 66
4. Videoconferencing 71
5. Audioconferencing 80
8. Flexible Scheduling 68
6. Resource based teaching and learning 70
7. Flexible access 83
All students 70
7.5 Influences The great majority of students (83%) said that the availability of flexible
on the
methods had not influenced their overall enrolment.
enrolment
decision
Only about a third said that the way in which the unit was taught had a
bearing on their decision to enrol in a particular unit.
Over half said they needed the unit and the delivery method had no
impact on their decision.

October 2003
33
Many of the students said that the decision making was not determined
by whether the subject was delivered using flexible delivery methods.
Answers are broken down into 3 main reasons, the method made no
difference, the unit was needed and hence there was no real choice and
the student did not know it was flexible at the time of enrolment.
I chose the subject I was interested in. How it was delivered

was of little concern. (Fully on-line delivery)
I had no choice in which way I wanted to do the course.

I had to do the subject.
It just sort of happened. It did not influence my decision. It

was just the way it was delivered. (Web dependent).
I didn’t know it was flexible until the first lecture.
In more than half of the responses, flexible delivery was not the
determining influence.
However, some chose a unit for quite specific reasons related to the
method, such as being able to balance work and or home responsibilities
with their studies, distance or convenience.
Some typical responses were.

The ability to do it at home.
Greater access to resources off campus.
More convenient.
It sounded more interesting.
The remoteness of where I live.
I just wanted to use the internet.
A sole parent, I needed more time at home.
I wanted to keep my part time work.
There are not that many contact hours and you can access stuff
from home.
I was looking to speed up my progress.

October 2003
34
Delivery methods where having the opportunity to study has made more
of a difference are videoconferencing, fully online delivery and
flexible scheduling.
21% of those who regraded videoconferencing as their main flexible

teaching and learning method, said it influenced their unit selection.
14% said it affected their course selection.
Of those regarding “fully online” as their main flexible teaching and

learning method, 25% said it influenced their unit selection, 14% said it
affected their course selection and 11% mentioned the timing of their
enrolment.
Of those regarding “flexible scheduling” as their main flexible

teaching and learning method, 7% said it influenced their unit selection,
14% said it affected their course selection and 11% mentioned the
timing of their enrolment.
Other students who nominated web dependent methods or web

supported methods were less affected. More than 85% said having the
opportunity made no difference to their enrolment.
Nevertheless around 10% said it had influenced their unit choice, 5%

said it influenced their course selection and 3% the timing of their
enrolment.
Given the influences on enrolment that have been identified and the fact
that these units were selected rather than not being selected, it could be
expected that students would find the flexible opportunity an attractive
one.
Flexible methods Overall 31% of students said that the method employed made the unit
made units more
or course more attractive as against only 2% who said it made the
attractive
course or unit less attractive. 67% said it made no difference to them.

October 2003
35
There are some significant differences between the attractiveness of

different delivery methods. The percentage of students finding the
method they experienced to be “very attractive” varied between 50%
(fully online), 49% (flexible access) and “43% (resource based
teaching”) to 26% (web supported).
7% of those enrolling for units delivered using flexible scheduling said

they found the delivery method made enrolling less attractive. This
percentage was higher than all other delivery methods.
7.6 Satisfaction The great majority of students were either “very satisfied” (19%) or
with access
“quite satisfied” (64%) with the information they received about how the
arrangements
unit would be delivered when they were deciding whether to enrol.
Dissatisfaction was a little higher (20%) amongst students taking units

that used web-dependent delivery methods.
33% are “very satisfied” with the arrangements that the University has
made for them to access teaching and learning by the method they had
experienced. A further 60% were quite satisfied, leaving only 7% who
were dissatisfied, of which 1% was very dissatisfied”.
Satisfaction about access levels was high irrespective of the delivery

method being experienced.

October 2003
36
7.7 Access to 94% of students have access to a computer off campus, which they are
Computers and
able to use for their studies.
the Web
84% say that the unit they have been referring to when talking about
their flexible teaching experience required them to use the web.
Table 22 – The Requirement to Use the Web

(percentage of students required to use the web)
Flexible Classification % of students that say

the unit requires them
to use the web
1. Full On-line 93
2. Web dependent 91
3. Web supported 81
8. Flexible access 85
All students 84
Nearly all students say that the available software is adequate for their
purposes.
Table 23 – The Adequacy of Available Software for Study Purposes

(percentage of students agreeing the software is adequate)
Flexible Classification % of students that say

the available software is
adequate
1. Full On-line 96
2. Web dependent 94
3.Web supported 95
10. Flexible access to lectures 98
All students 95
87% of students have internet access off campus and once again there
is no significant difference with respect to the 10 teaching and learning
delivery methods.

October 2003
37
Figure 4 - Where Students Access the Web
90
80
70
% of students 60
accessing the 50
web at each 40
location
30
20
10
0
At home At work Online State University
Access Library Campus
Centre
% of students
When students 46% of students access the web for their studies at any time during the
access the web
week.
32% access it most commonly on weekdays during the day and 28% do
so on weekdays in the evening.
The percentage who most commonly access it at the weekends is much

lower, 9% in the daytime and 7% in the evening.
7.8 Students’ Around a quarter of students say that they make use of “all” the
Use of the
resources offered in the unit, about half make use of “most of them” and
Resources
Offered in the the remainder make “some use” or use a “single resource”. This pattern
Unit
applies to each of the main delivery methods.
WebCT based resources, Lecture notes, Discussion Boards, On-line

Quizzes were most commonly mentioned resources. Others included
submitting assignments, past exam papers, additional readings (text
books).

October 2003
38
7.9 Effects of Almost two thirds (65%) of the students agree that flexible delivery has
the Way
changed the way in which they study compared with traditional methods.
Students Study
Table 24- Percentage of Students who Agree That Flexible Delivery

has Changed the Way they Study Compared with Traditional
Methods
Delivery Method % of Students who Have

Changed the Way they Study
Fully online 75
Web dependent 69
Web supported 60
Video conference 50
Audio conference 100
Flexible scheduling 59
Resource Based Teaching & Learning 56
Flexible Access to Lectures 81
All Students 65
Many of the comments related to the benefits of being able to study

when and where they wanted to.
More study time spent at the computer.
It enhances lectures. I don’t need to take as many notes.
I can do more study at home instead of being on campus all day.
It’s quicker over the internet than looking up research in books.
I am able to catch up on missed lectures.
Students were asked about the effect that flexible learning methods had
had on their interaction with other students. 47% said it had made no
difference to the way in which they studied, 30% said it had led to more
discussion with other students, 12% said there had been less discussion
and 10% said “it varied”.
More of those studying fully online said it led to less discussion with other
students than said it led to more discussion.
More students in the North and North West found that the flexible
methods led to them having more discussions with other students than
was the case in the South. 44% of those in the North West said the
flexible methods were leading to more discussion with other students
compared with only 26% in the South.

October 2003
39
Culture is more A second aspect was whether flexible learning had provided the students
collaborative
with a more or less collaborative culture. 49% said the “flexible delivery”
culture was “more collaborative”, 17% said it was “less collaborative” and
28% said it had made no difference.
Students receiving web-dependent delivery methods were more likely to

find the learning culture more collaborative than students using fully
online methods. 56% of web dependent students found the culture
more collaborative compared with 29% of those using fully online
methods.
Here again there was a significant difference between the northern part
of the state than the South. 60% of those in the North West and 58% in
the North and North East found the culture more collaborative compared
with 45% in the South.
7.10 Power A potential problem for students using the web is the quality and
Outages
reliability of the power supply and the extent to which they experience
power outages.
9% of those who are taking units that require them to use the web say
that web outages “very seriously” affect their ability to study. Another
17% say that the effects are “quite serious” and 39% say such outages
affect them “a little”.
Students studying fully on-line or taking units that use web-dependent

methods are more likely to be affected than are those where the unit is
“web supported”.
12% of those studying fully on-line or web dependant were “seriously

affected” compared with 24% of those who were web supported.

October 2003
40
Section Eight - Conclusions

The responses from students to the survey represent a strong
endorsement of the University’s policy of developing and encouraging
flexible teaching and learning.
Students expressed overall satisfaction with their experiences with units

they are enrolled in and specifically with respect to particular aspects of
the ways in which the units were taught and they ways in which they
were prepared for them.
Flexible delivery methods, including those that are web dependent and
web supported are welcomed by both full-time and part-time students.
Flexible scheduling is particularly welcome amongst part-time students.
Some students welcome flexible delivery because it makes it easier for

them to attend University by overcoming work, distance or family
pressures.
However, the majority who are enrolled in units using flexible delivery
methods have not selected these units because of the way in which the
unit is delivered. Rather they have chosen the units they want to take or
need to take to complete desired courses.
Having said that, many say that flexible delivery was attractive and that
their learning experience has been enhanced as a result. Benefits
include more interaction with other students and a more collegial culture.
Flexible delivery produced other signficant benefits such as greater
independence and access to more resources.
Tangible financial benefits that were identified included savings in

transport costs, increased work opportunities and printing costs.
Half of the students report some difficulties when accessing flexible

learning. These most commonly related to computer and technical
problems or shortcomings in the support received.

October 2003
41
About a third of the students also report additional financial costs that
disadvantage them. These include printing and internet and stationery
costs.

October 2003
42
Appendix A
Flexible Teaching and Learning at the University
Student Survey
The Questionnaire
1. Interview No. 2. Interviewer 3. Phone Number
4. Date 5. Region 6. Fexible Classification

1. North and NE 1 FO
2. North West & West 2. WDEC
3. South 3. WDC
4. Outside Tasmania 4. WEC
7. Gender 8. Time Commenced 5. WS
1. Male 6. Vid
2. Female 7. Aud
8. Flexsc
9. RBTL
10 Flex Access
Good afternoon/evening,
My name is Jane. Could I speak to XXX.
IF UNAVAILABE ARRANGE TO CALL BACK AT A CONVENIENT TIME.
WHEN XXX BECOMES AVAILABLE SAY.
XXX, my name is Jane from the research firm EMRS and I am ringing on
behalf of the University of Tasmania. The University has asked us to
contact students about their recent experiences with the University’s
flexible teaching and learning program. Your involvement is entirely
voluntary and you are under no obligation to participate at all. However,
Would you be willing to help as by answering some questions over the
phone? It will take about 10 minutes and your answers are confidential to
the research team.
IF AN INCONVENIENT TIME ARRANGE A CALL BACK TIME.
As I mentioned, this survey is about flexible teaching and learning. By flexible

teaching and learning we mean delivery methods that increase student control
over when, what, how and where they learn. They are less time and place
dependent than the more traditional forms of university teaching such as formal
lectures and tutorials.

October 2003
43
1. Flexible teaching comes in a variety of forms. I am going to read you a

list and ask you which of these forms you(may) have experienced IN THE
CURRENT YEAR.
The first group involves teaching and learning using the web to a greater
or lesser extent.
1.1 FULLY ONLINE LEARNING. FO
The unit is taught fully on-line 1. Yes
2. No
3. Unsure
1.2 WEB DEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL CONTENT & COMMUNICATIONS WDEC
The unit is taught face to face but I have to access content 1. Yes
resources and use communications tools such as discussion 2. No
boards, on-line. 3. Unsure
1.3 WEB DEPENDENT – EDUCATIONAL CONTENT WDC
The unit is taught face to face but I have to use content 1. Yes
resources on-line 2. No
3. Unsure
1.4 WEB DEPENDENT – COMMUNICATIONS WEC
This unit is taught face to face but I have to use 1. Yes
communication tools such as discussion boards, on-line. 2. No
3. Unsure
1.5 WEB SUPPORTED WS
This unit is taught using face to face teaching methods but 1. Yes
supplementary resources are available on the web. 2. No
3. Unsure
Other methods of flexible teaching and learning you may have experienced during
the current year are as follows
1.6 VIDEOCONFERENCING VIDEO

This unit uses Videoconferencing as one of its teaching 1. Yes
methods 2. No
1.7 AUDIOCONFERENCING AUDIO
This unit uses Audioconferencing as one of its teaching 1. Yes
methods 2. No
1.8 FLEXIBLE SCHEDULING FLEXSC
I have the opportunity in this unit to attend some classes out 1. Yes
of normal teaching hours, eg weekend blocks, summer schools 2. No
1.9 RESOURCE BASED TEACHING AND LEARNING – RBTL
In this unit I have to study independently using study 1. Yes
resources such as CDs, books of readings etc. 2. No
1.10 FLEXIBLE ACCESS FLEX
In this unit lectures are available on audio or video tape or are 1. Yes
streamed from the web for access at any time. 2. No
IF NONE OF 1.1 THROUGH TO 1.10 ASK Q2 THEN TERMINATE WITH THANKS

ELSE GO TO Q3.

October 2003
44
2. Are there any reasons why you haven’t enrolled in any units that used any of
these flexible teaching methods?
RECORD VERBATIM FOR POSTCODING – THEN TERMINATE WITH THANKS.
ALL OTHER RESPONDENTS
3. What degree course or program RECORD VERBATIM

are you currently enrolled for?
4. How many years, including this

one, have you been enrolled as a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 more
student at the University of
Tasmania?
5. How many years have you been
enrolled in your current course of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 more
study.
6. For which unit or units have you RECORD UNIT OR UNITS VERBATIM
accessed flexible teaching and SEE NOTE ON SAMPLING
learning during the current year.
7. How old are you? RECORD
8. Which of the following best 1. A full time student

describes your situation? Are you… 2. A full time student with part time
employment
READ OUT OPTIONS 3. A part time student with full time
employment
4. A part time student with part
time employment
5. A part time student with home
duties
6. Other (Specify)
8A Specify
9. I would like you to think about the flexible teaching and delivery methods you
have experienced THIS YEAR.
Which flexible learning method is the 1. Fully online

MAIN METHOD you have experienced 2. Web Dependent – Educ + Comm
THIS YEAR? 3. Web Dependent – Comm only
4. Web Dependent – Education only
RECORD THE FLEXIBLE TEACHING AND 5. Web supported WS
LEARNING METHOD THAT WILL BE THE
SUBJECT OF THE FOLLOWING 6. Video conferencing
QUESTIONS – RECORD ONLY 7. Audio conferencing
8. Flexible scheduling
9. Resource based teaching/learning
10 Flexible access to lectures

October 2003
45
SECTION B – ACCESS ISSUES
10. How long does it take you to get 1. Under 15 minutes

to the nearest campus of the 2. 15 but under 30 minutes
University of Tasmania? Is it… 3. 30 minutes but less than 1 hour
4. 1 hour but less than 2 hours
5. More than 2 hours
10A. How easy has it been for you to 1. Very easy
gain access to flexible learning using 2. Quite easy
this method? Is it … 3. Quite difficult
4. Very difficult
11. What difficulties or barriers have you faced using this method of learning?
1. None
RECORD VERBATIM FOR POST CODING
12. What sorts of specific costs have you 1. None GO TO Q14

incurred by studying in this way? 2. Printing
3. Computer costs (hardware)
4. Computer (software
5. Internet costs
6. Stationery
7. Other (specify)
12A Other (Specify)
13. To what extent have these extra costs 1. Very much

disadvantaged 2. Somewhat
you when using this method of studying? 3. Not at all
Is it…
14. What sorts of financial benefits have 1. None GO TO Q16
you received by studying in this way? 2. Printing3. Travel costs
4. Work opportunities
5. Other (specify)
14A Other (Specify)
OTHER FINANCIAL BENEFITS CAPTURED HERE

October 2003
46
15. To what extent have these financial benefits 1. Very much

advantaged you when using this method of studying? 2. Somewhat
Is it… 3. Not at all
16. Thinking about your situation, has flexible delivery of 1. Yes

this type provided you with opportunities for study that 2. No
would not have been possible through traditional 3. Unsure
methods?
17. Has having the opportunity to study in this way made 1. No change
any difference to your enrolment? If so, in what ways? 2. Unit selection
3. Course selection
MULTIPLE RESPONSES POSSIBLE 4. Timing of
enrolment
5. Other (specify)
17A SPECIFY
18. Have they made enrolling for this unit or 1. More attractive
course more attractive, less attractive or has it 2. Less attractive
made no difference? 3. Made no difference
4. Unsure
19. Overall how satisfied are you with the 1. Very satisfied
arrangements the University has made for you 2. Quite satisfied
to access teaching and learning in this way? 3. Not very satisfied
Are you… 4. Very dissatisfied
20. What suggestions based on your experience, do you have about how the
University could improve access for students to flexible teaching and learning?
RECORD VERBATIM

October 2003
47
21. Do you have access to a computer off campus, 1. Yes GO TO Q23

which you use in your studies? 2. No
22 Does the unit you have been talking about 1. Yes
require you to use the web? 2. No GO TO Q28
23. Is the software available to you adequate for 1. Yes
study purposes 2. No
24. Do you have Internet access off campus 1. Yes
2. No
25. Where do you access the Web? Is it… 1. At home

2. At work
MULTIPLE RSPONSES POSSIBLE 3. On-line Access Centre
4. State Library
5. Uni campus
6. Other (specify)
25A Other (specify)
26. When do you commonly access the web for 1. Weekdays daytime
your studies? Is it.. 2. Weekdays evening
3. Weekends daytime
MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 4. Weekend evenings
5. At any time – it varies
27. How seriously do network outages affect 1. Very seriously
your ability to study? Are you affected… 2. Quite seriously
3. A little
4. Not at all
5. Unsure

October 2003
48
SECTION C - PARTICIPATION
28. How important was the way in which the unit 1. Very important
would be delivered when deciding what to enrol 2. Quite important
in? Was it.. 3. Not very important
4. Not at all important
29. How satisfied were you with the information 1. Very satisfied
about how the unit would be delivered when 2. Quite satisfied
deciding whether to enrol? Were you… 3. Not very satisfied
4. Not satisfied at all
30. What influenced your thoughts when deciding between a flexible unit and a
traditional unit?
RECORD VERBATIM
31. Thinking about the resources that were 1. All of them

offered in this unit, how many of them did you 2. Most of them
make use of? Was it… 3. Some of them
4. Only one
32. Which of the resource types did you make most use of?
RECORD VERBATIM
32. Has flexible delivery changed the ways in which 1. Yes

you study compared with traditional methods. 2. No GO TO Q34
33. How have you changed the ways in which you study?
RECORD VERBATIM
34. Have the flexible learning 1. Led to more discussion with

methods you have been using this other students.
year… 2. Led to less discussion with other
students.
3. Made no difference
4. It has varied
5. Unsure
35. Overall has flexible learning 1. More collaborative culture
provided you with a more or less 2. Less collaborative culture
collaborative learning culture? 3. Made no difference
4. It has varied
5. Unsure

October 2003
49
SECTION D - OUTCOMES AND ACHIEVEMENTS
36. Do you feel that you have 1. Yes

benefited in any way from flexible 2. No GO TO Q38
learning methods this year 3. It has varied/unsure
compared with traditional methods
in terms of what you have learned?
37. In what ways have you 1. Independence in learning
benefited? 2. Greater access to resources
3. Acquired computer and web skills
4. Greater lecturer access
5. Greater access to other students
6. Other (Specify)
37A (Specify)
38.Do you think you have performed 1. Better under flexible

better than, as well as or poorer 2. As well as
than you would have done under a 3. Worse under flexible
more traditional approach? 4. Unsure
5. I have no basis for comparison
39. How suitable were the 1. Very suitable
assessment methods used given the 2. Quite suitable
teaching methods that were 3. Not very suitable
adopted? Were they.. 4. Not at all suitable
40. In what ways could they have been improved?
RECORD VERBATIM
41. What suggestions do you have about how the learning experience
under flexible learning delivery could have been enhanced?
RECORD VERBATIM

October 2003
50
SECTION E – SATISFACTION WITH FLEXIBLE LEARNING
42. I would now like to read you a series of Score Max=10

statements. In each case could you give the unit and
flexible teaching method we have been talking about a
score out of 10 where 1 is strongly disagreed and 10
strongly agreed.
42.1 An adequate level of support was provided in
areas such as training, troubleshooting and technical
support.
42.2 The lecturer appeared competent in using the
particular form of flexible delivery chosen.
42.3 The lecturer adequately prepared students in how
to use the technologies required.
42.4 The lecturer adequately prepared the students to
study the unit using flexible delivery methods.
42.5 The rationale of the teaching by flexible delivery
was explained to students.
42.6 The teaching approach was equitable to all

students studying this unit.
43. Overall, how satisfied were you 1. Very satisfied

with the way in which this unit was 2. Quite satisfied
taught using flexible delivery? 3. Not very Satisfied
Were you.. 4. Not satisfied at all
44. In what ways, if any, could the way in which the unit was taught by
flexible delivery have been improved?
RECORD VERBATIM FOR POSTCODING

October 2003
51
SECTION F – OVERALL COMMENTS
45. Thinking more generally how 1. Very satisfied

satisfied are you with the approach 2. Quite satisfied
that the University is taking by 3. Not very Satisfied
encouraging flexible teaching and 4. Not satisfied at all
learning methods?
Are you…
46. How would you like to see the 1. All units delivered flexibly
units in your course delivered in the 2. Some units delivered flexible and
future? Would you prefer others in a conventional manner
3. No units delivered flexibly
4. Other (specify)
46A Other (Specify)
47. In summing up, what do you see as the principal benefits of flexible learning
from your perspective?
RECORD VERBATIM
48. And what do you see as the principal disadvantages of flexible learning from
your perspective?
RECORD VERBATIM
Thank you for helping us. Just to remind you that I am Jane from EMRS
and I have conducted this survey on behalf of the University of Tasmania.
If you have any questions about this survey, you can either contact my
supervisor on 62 111 222, OR Carol Harding in the Office of the Pro Vice
Chancellor Teaching and Learning on 6324 3349 or to the Hobart Campus
on 6226 1905.
I certify that this interview has been recorded fully and accurately according to the
Code of Professional Behaviour of the Market Research Society of Australia.
………………………..INTERVIEWER……………………….DATE
………………………………TIME COMPLETED……………………..TIME TAKEN

October 2003

Flexible T-And-L Impact Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flexible T-And-L Impact Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE IMPACT ON STUDENTS

The University of Tasmania

Enterprise Marketing & Research Services Pty. Ltd.

2. Students Who Have Not Used Flexible Teaching and Learning 12

3. Profile of the Students Using Flexible Teaching and Learning 14

4. Overall Satisfaction with Flexible Teaching and Learning 17

5. Satisfaction with Specific Aspects of Flexible Teaching 20

6. Outcomes and Achievements 24

7. Access and Participation 28

Appendix – The Questionnaire 42

Key Findings of the Evaluation

In recent years, the University of Tasmania has progressively moved to

Flexible teaching and learning involves delivery in a number of forms.

Table 1 – Flexible Delivery Methods Used for the Evaluation

Delivery Description of the Delivery Method

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

Overall Satisfaction with Flexible Delivery

Endorsement of There was also endorsement of the University’s approach in encouraging

Satisfaction with Specific Aspects of Flexible Teaching

Students’ satisfaction levels with a number of specific aspects of flexible

Table 2 – Average Percentage Satisfaction Scores for Particular

Statement about Flexible Teaching % of

Satisfaction scores were somewhat higher amongst students taking units

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

Outcomes and Achievements

Three quarters mentioned the greater access to resources at their

Students were almost evenly divided as to whether they had performed

21% found the assessment methods that were adopted to be “very

Access to Flexible Delivery

Most were satisfied with the access arrangements made by the

50% of the students were unable to identify any difficulties or barriers

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

Computer related Most commonly identified difficulties related to computer, server or

83% were very satisfied or quite satisfied about the amount of

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

Section One – Introduction

Table 3 – Flexible Delivery Methods Used for the Evaluation

Delivery Description of the Delivery Method

In recent years, the University of Tasmania has progressively moved to

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

Flexible teaching methods feature in a significant proportion of the more

This evaluation has involved more than an assessment of each of the

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

1.2 Research The evaluation has involved administering a structured questionnaire by

Table 4 – Target Samples for Each Flexible Teaching Method

Types of Flexible Delivery Method No of % of Broad % of

1. The unit is taught fully online 195 1 30 3

The purposes in setting such targets were

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

Flexible Classification Broad Target Number Number who

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

1.3 The Of the 1003 students interviewed,

More information about the 927 students who completed the

Section Two – Reasons for Not Taking Flexible Units

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of

Section Two – Students Who Have Not Used

All Fine Arts subjects are taught face to face.

Has not been necessary this year yet.

There is little suggestion that these students made a conscious decision

I just chose the subjects I needed for my course. I did not

University of Tasmania – The Impact on Students of