A Journey of Reflection and Action Research Exploring the Enhanced Flexible Delivery Mode at a Small Study Centre

Heather Lovatt and Lucinda Reck

Introduction

As two new tutors and novice action researchers we identified many commonalities relating to our practice and experiences involving tutoring at the local Mackay study centre of James Cook University.  The commonalities formed the impetus of a journey of reflection and action research with a view to both personally and collectively enhancing opportunities for students and tutors at the James Cook University Mackay campus.  The research aims to identify relevant past history, what is currently happening and identify strengths and weaknesses in the current mode of delivery and from this formulate responses and a foundation for further actions.  The key focus is to enhance teaching skills and learning opportunities for tutors and students.

Why this topic?

Tutors at the Mackay Study Centre are not engaged in full time academia, but practical tutoring in the community and government. The Centre has a commitment and passion for fostering developmental practice with the underpinning principles of empowerment, capacity building and sustainability. It believes in in-context learning that takes into account and uses student life experiences. Thus, the research methodology selected reflects these philosophies. Atikinson (2000) stated should not be institutionalised through professional and vocational qualifications and noted that employers found too many graduates were deficient in creativity and flair, speaking skills, problem solving and general self-reliance. Of particular interest was that traditional disciplines of no nonsense practical training such as engineering and surveying were rated by employers as the most deficient, where as students of the humanities were best able to present themselves in the world and communicate their ideas effectively (ETS 1999, p.31). Atkinson’s comments seemed to validate our belief that the model of delivery offered at Mackay provides a solid preparation for students to become self-sufficient learners and practitioners in their areas, by meeting the needs of employers and their own professional development. We believe that tutorials by their very nature offer opportunities for enhanced learning and, along with the written modules, add value to learning. The members of the tutorial develop a social framework that usually involves co-operation and responsibility.  The process is dynamic with a lot of interaction, information sharing, active listening, responding, and opposing or agreeing. Thus communicative and social abilities are exercised and the intellect and personality are developed (Hermes 1999). It was from our discussions about tutoring; about what we had been doing with our tutoring, what we thought we did well and what we did not, what we could do better, what could be improved at the local campus etc., that this topic started emerging with a life of its own. We felt that we were actually deficient in our knowledge of support services for students, general campus systems and structures and it seemed to us that the same might apply to other tutors and students alike. We realised that while we used statements such as “flexible delivery works well in Mackay” and “this style of delivery meets students needs” this perception needed to be verified. So in an effort to establish what was working and what could be done better this piece of research emerged. We started by looking at the historical aspects of how this form of flexible delivery came about and investigated the dynamics and structure of the Mackay study centre with Head of School, Ros Thorpe, who assisted and sourced information.

The Mackay Study Centre

Mackay is situated in northern Queensland, Australia on the coast roughly half way between Rockhampton and Townsville. This presents students and tutors with a 4-hour drive to the main Townsville campus. The Mackay district, population 125,000 (ABS 1996) provides the most students for the local campus. In 1997 Professor McKinnon, of James Cook University (JCU), undertook a study of the Mackay Campus to determine future directions.  Gordon Noscov, the Mackay campus administrator, committed to computerisation and advocated for local tutors supplemented with visiting tutors. The Mackay campus now provides a modern computer room with 24-hour student access to computers and the web. The campus now offers a 3-year Bachelor of Community Welfare (BCW) and a 4-year Bachelor of Social Work (BSW). Since the campus’ inception the subjects being offered have steadily expanded.  In 1998 first year subjects for both degrees were offered to 11 enrolled students (doubling by 2^nd semester), in 1999 second year subjects were also offered and in 2000 third year BCW subjects are offered and third year BSW students have the opportunity to undertake their field placement in Mackay. Prior to the field placement there will be a need to attend the James Cook Campus in Townsville as part of preparation. In 2001, there are now 33 students enrolled in the BSW and 19 enrolled in the BCW in the flexible-learning mode and no distance students are enrolled. The possibility of offering third and fourth year BSW subjects has been on the drawing board with discussions taking place with the Australian Association of Social Workers and will commence in 2002. The need for expansion of subjects for Mackay Campus is one of the areas the researchers sought to gain input on and assess need.

A decision was made by the School of Social Work and Welfare to trial a ‘flexible delivery’ mode and funds were made available for the employment of 3 local tutors in the first year. JCU saw that flexible delivery in an enhanced format would be an effective mode to meet the needs of Mackay students. This mode of delivery involved providing the same written materials that distance students received and tutoring. Tutors were allocated to each subject and offered weekly tutorials of 1½-hour duration. Tutors were also available for 1-hour each week for individual consultation. The lecturer for each subject visited from Townsville at least once each semester and the Head of School also visited. Other visitors from JCU Townsville included Study Skills and IT support staff. In Mackay, visitors make themselves available for consultation and socialising with tutors and students.

Reflection and the Road to travel

From the beginning of this project, which aimed to evaluate tertiary teaching at the Mackay campus, our thinking was enhanced by observation, reflection, discussion and analysis about practice and process. Initially, we felt that this was important, but we later found that it was an essential element. Aschroft & Foreman-Peck (1994), who see reflection as an integral part of practice, support this view. They state that reflective practice requires a commitment to learning from experience and evidence, rather than from recipes for action. They affirm that critical enquiry should be responsive to your own needs and the context in which you work, but also critical of the existing educational provision and ideology (including your own). The analysis involves not just your own practice, but also the social, moral and political context for that practice. We found the following paradigm was helpful in identifying the circular and spiral affect of reflection used as a process of critical inquiry (Fig. 1). This was a process we felt was essential for us to move on and also to become a part of our continuing practice.

Figure 1:  “Learning from experience through reflection” Hatten cited in Hatten et al 1997, p.5)

We had also been exploring various vehicles by which we could use our reflection to do some problem solving. McMahon (1999) pointed out that action research is a form of self-reflective problem solving of which reflection is a crucial part. Winter (1987) tied in the concept of reflection and action and fostered the idea of “creating knowledge out of one’s practical involvement, through the critical examination of one’s own practice – the central process of experiential learning, the never ending cycle of action and reflection.”

We needed to be clear that action research was an appropriate vehicle. Wortley (1996) identified the concern that because “the ideals and language of action research, such as collaboration, consultation, empowerment and social change are so continuously mouthed…it is easy to be deceived that one is part of an action research paradigm, yet in fact subscribing to a probably eclectic individually conceived framework.” Tripp (1995) identified that it is sometimes difficult to “distinguish the difference between action research and business-as-usual professional practice.” The difference appeared to be in the following framework put forward by Kemmis and McTaggart (1988) (Fig. 2), which emphasised the need for planning, acting, observing and reflecting in a way that demonstrates more care and rigor and was more systematic than what was usually done in day to day life.

Given that this project was time limited, we knew that this would be the start of what should be an ongoing evaluation, both personally and as a study centre. Having identified the importance of reflective practice and action research as tools in our journey, we were keen to link an additional concept of quality assurance to complete a solid framework. Such a framework would also provide a basis by which supplementary reflection, assessment and research could be undertaken. We were interested in ensuring that this project had a validity and a legitimacy that would be a valuable link in the continued development and enhancement of Mackay Study Centre, and the drive towards acknowledgement and Social Work accreditation to meet the ongoing learning needs of students.

Figure 2:  The Action Research Spiral (Kemmis & McTaggart 1988, p.29)

Past research using reflective practice, action research and quality assurance as guiding methodologies has shown that whilst these three concepts have commonalities and overlaps in terms of cyclical nature, basic functions of stages, combinations of action and reflection, identifying areas of concern and principles of exploration and a solution to a concern they also have major differences (Fig. 3).  Some of these differences are in relation to context of internal and external processes, the interaction level of participants and evidence of outcomes (Hatten et al 1997, p.17)  

Figure 3: Quality Assurance Feedback Cycle (Hatten et al 1997)

For our purposes, the three concepts needed to be defined separately at the outset to provide a clear map, but as matter progressed we found that concept elements were overlaid and value-added to each other. Each research project that is undertaken would take various elements from each of these concepts to develop it’s own unique map. While we felt supported in having models to further our process we were concerned about how rigorously we had to adhere to the models.  It was important to have flexibility and spontaneity to carry out our journey by taking the ‘forks in the road’ as they presented.  Cook (1998) contended with this struggle for a balance between being hindered in following identified models versus losing sight of process and methodology. We found we continued to struggle with the forks in the road, as they became affectionately known to us.  How do you define these, we asked ourselves.  We were at the point where we had begun to question whether the tangents we were embarking on and the terminology that we attributed to this predicament, such as ‘mess’, ‘muddle’ and ‘uncertainty’, would result in a loss of validity and external credibility. Cook (1998) identified the importance of mess in an action research project she had completed.  This validated the messiness we were experiencing as actually being beneficial and in essence needed for our project.   Cook put forward the notion that it is the zigzag of crossing from the intuitive to analytical mode of thinking and back that helps to identify pertinent knowledge. We identified with Cook’s statement that the model of action research is “a model of bumbling change supported retrospectively by theories”.

Methodology

Having formulated our framework we developed a methodology that was based on the development of partnerships with the students to gather formal and informal comments designed to ascertain the current strengths and weaknesses of the enhanced flexible delivery mode offered at Mackay Study Centre. Our participatory research included the development and implementation of a student survey, informal student and tutor feedback, focus group discussions and critical self-analysis. Through the formal use of a survey and focus groups we wanted to test the validity of the beliefs that we held as tutors. In developing the survey we tested our own assumptions regarding the benefits of utilising technology to support learning. To do this we chose to develop our survey tool via the internet and were greatly surprised at the ease and benefit of doing this. The research focussed on student perceptions and feelings regarding services and facilities provided for them and their general opinions regarding preparation for professional practice.

In wishing to pursue best practice by ensuring that focus groups and individual discussions included all key stakeholders, it became obvious that the time frames originally planned for the research to take place were unrealistically set.  It was necessary to keep extending research parameters, since we got engrossed in the process for a number of reasons.  We found, to our excitement that we were implementing change as we researched.  Indeed some of the recommendations that would have formally come from this piece of research have in fact taken place prior to the completion and writing of this paper. While this for us was a great learning experience because we saw positive change in process and what it can mean to students we also learnt that as researchers you cannot continuously broaden parameters without a cost.  We found we put a great deal of pressure on ourselves to continue the momentum of change that was being generated by the research to a level that could not be sustained.

Results and Student Feedback

Overall survey results indicated a general satisfaction with the mode of delivery.  The majority of those surveyed felt that our flexible-learning approach was an improvement on text-based distance education in that they felt in control of their own learning. Results indicated that the mode of delivery supported a variety of learning experiences and was extremely learner centred. A majority of students believed that the balance of support between face-to-face and technological support (such as library services) was workable and supportive.

There was general agreement within the results that studying via enhanced flexible delivery would allow them as students to gain a body of knowledge to begin professional practice or to go on to postgraduate studies. Students felt that they were developing an ability to solve problems using logical, creative and critical approaches. They were developing the capacity to work both independently and cooperatively in teams and were further developing an understanding of and commitment to ethical practice and a concern for social justice. Most importantly, all students agreed that by studying in this mode, they were developing a commitment to lifelong learning through ongoing personal and professional development.

Focus group discussions indicated that while students have an overall satisfaction with the manner in which courses are provided students highlighted that there is room still for improvement especially in computer facilities to allow enhanced technological access to main campus facilities.

While this article does not give a critical analysis or indeed full coverage of all points raised, these were aspects that were crucial for this project for historical and developmental purposes.  In two years we hope that this survey questionnaire is again used to check the validity and status of the operation. Some points raised follow below and these are noted in entirety for historical purposes. Some have had accompanying actions already implemented and the response to these over the last 12 months is noted below.

Outcomes

As we spoke with key stakeholders, such as staff in the library, IT, Study Skills, Student Association, and Bookshop, options and strategies started to emerge.  Examples included:

At the orientation evening at the start of 2001, the outcomes of this project were clearly evident with information kits being available for each new student containing a wealth of information about university life and support services.  More importantly there was representation from the main campus in Townsville to further emphasise the commitment of the university to support students in Mackay.  Feedback from the Townsville representatives was extremely positive commenting on the information provided, the feel of the evening and the interactions between students and staff gave further evidence of the success of the evening.  This evening demonstrated the development of the study centre and the need for student support as they venture on their learning journey.

One of the more important outcomes of the research has been the continuing development of the Administrative Coordinator’s position, occupied by the second author. The contribution of this position to the study centre has been integral to its ongoing development and success.  By being able to draw on the knowledge base generated by the research we have been able to continue to address student’s issues of concern and the ongoing organisational development needs of the study centre.  Student numbers continue to rapidly grow and the coordination of activities based on sound learning principles and student support is a testament to the fact that all stakeholders have owned this research framework and methodology. As such, critical reflection and development continues.

Overall, our results found that the enhanced flexible delivery mode is a meaningful one in changing times for a diverse range of students. Our personal and professional beliefs, now backed by this research, suggest that ongoing reflection and evaluation must be continued if we are to maintain the ideal characteristics we are developing at this centre. Further to this, our research suggests that this enhanced flexible mode of delivery is valid and pertinent to today’s society.  We suggest that an area requiring further attention is the development of mechanisms to enhance student learning through the continued provision of information technology services. We offer a final thought that has provided a weaving thread throughout our research. To say that this research has provided a learning experience is an understatement.  We need to say that we have been confirmed in many of our thoughts about the provision of enhanced flexible delivery at this campus and the words of Rigmor (1995) sum up our parting thoughts. “Flexible modes of delivery, have arisen as a response to ongoing debates occurring around access and equity considerations; diversification of student populations; valuing of student centred forms of teaching; emphasis on the characteristics of graduates and the need to provide learning opportunities throughout life which are directly linked to the economy.  At another level the move toward flexible delivery can be seen as the response of the education sector to what has been termed the information age.  Universities must respond to a social climate in which students demand that institutions relate to them as individuals. As we move further into the information age a range of educational and learning options surrounds students. The internal (face-to-face)/external (distance education) model is rapidly becoming out dated and in order to remain competitive universities must structure themselves and their courses so that they are capable of responding to the varying learning needs and circumstances of their students………….students need to leave university with a range of meta-skills which are not necessarily content specific and are transferable to a range of situations……....this has implications for all of us who work within educational settings in terms of how we teach and how our students will learn.  Process is important.

Reference List