Melissa Mills [HREF1], Learning
Consultant, Learning Services, New England Area Health Service, PO Box 83 Tamworth NSW 2340.
Email: Melissa Mills
Flexible and online education models in the Australian Vocational Education and Training (VET) system have been evolving over recent years in response to the demands of learners and employers. This is especially so in the health sector with competing budgets, burgeoning costs, the vagaries of distance and a shift and part-time workforce. Dynamic learning models, including flexible and online learning, need to become mainstream in order to increase access by staff to the smorgasbord of learning opportunities available. This paper reviews the literature on flexible and online learning in the VET system in Australia and describes how the NSW Health RTO (Registered Training Organisation), arguably one of the largest and certainly most diverse industry based RTOs in Australia, developed a change management plan for flexible learning. A rudimentary online learning experience was offered to staff from learning and development units across NSW Health. The course gave 100 ‘teaching’ staff from 15 of the 18 Area Health Services (AHS) the opportunity to experience, first hand, online learning and to contribute to the development of a change management plan in flexible delivery for NSW Health. This paper reports pre- and post- course survey data, which showed significant improvement in skill levels of participants, but varying levels of attitudinal change towards flexible learning. This outcome is extremely significant given that the organisation’s core business is not learning and that the organisation does not have a statewide e-learning platform. The paper argues the need for all staff working in the health sector to embrace flexible and online learning principles and practices as a precursor to the health industry catching up with what is now mainstream pedagogy. From the learning perspective this opens the way to remove duplication across AHSs. Online learning could be run, feasibly, from just one AHS or alternatively, AHSs might specialise in different areas - the potential of technology in learning is huge.
The NSW Health Registered Training Organisation (RTO) is a large industry based RTO responsible for 100,000 staff. Eighteen area health services (AHS) constitute NSW Health, each with a learning and development (L&D) unit responsible for assessment and training. There is wide variation in the size and scope of each L&D unit, resulting in varying levels of access by staff to learning opportunities. In March 2000, the L&D units within each AHS voluntarily joined forces to become the NSW Health RTO, with obvious cost savings and efficiency gains (Hartley, 2001).
The New South Wales Area Health Services Act (1997), requires, in part, the Director-General of Health to: promote and facilitate the provision of the professional, technical or any other education or training of any persons employed or to be employed in the provision of any health service training and career development opportunities. More recently, NSW Health’s Strategic Directions 2000-2005 document espouses a learning organisation culture that ensures learning and development programs are competency based; that the education needs of the organisation are met; and that there is ongoing development of leaders and managers. This refers to vocational and academic learning alike.
The Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) (2001) defines flexible delivery of education as a range of approaches used to provide education and training, giving learners greater choice about when, where and how they learn. Flexible delivery of education may involve distance education, mixed-mode delivery, online education, self-paced learning, and self-directed learning, to name a few. It is also important to define flexible learning and flexible teaching, as there are ramifications regarding learner and teacher roles within a flexible education model. Flexible learning is an approach to education that places increased responsibility for learning on the learner, compared with more traditional teaching models where the responsibility may rest more with the teacher. The learner may have choice about the range of media and methods to use that meet their learning needs and objectives.
Online education is just one of a range of approaches that can be used in promoting more individualised and flexible learning and it is important to clarify the terminology used when discussing online education models. The National Council for Vocational Education and Research (NCVER) in Australia defines online learning, training or education as learning or training conducted via a computer network eg using the Internet and the World Wide Web, a local area network, or an Intranet (NCVER, 2002). Bates (1997) refers to online education as a distributed learning environment, characterised by a learner centred approach to education where a number of technologies may be utilised for activities and interaction in both synchronous and asynchronous modes. He emphasises the need to blend approaches to meet the diverse needs of learners in a flexible and cost effective way.
There are many forces driving the way teaching and learning is conducted in the Australian VET system, particularly within industry. Organisational constraints, changes in policy and technological advancements have had an impact at the organisational level on access to learning opportunities (Mills, 2001). Strategic planning at a national level has also had an impact on the way education and training is delivered and how it will be delivered in the future. The Australian Flexible Learning Framework for the National VET System, 2000-2004, documents a national approach to the accelerated take-up of flexible learning options (ANTA, 2001). ANTA’s Flexible Learning Vision states, that by 2004, Australia will be recognised as the global leader in applying new technologies to vocational education and training (ANTA, 2001).
Woudstra and Murgatroyd (1992) argue that all countries need a skilled and educated workforce to compete globally, and that education providers must be responsive to the changing needs of the workforce. They argue that organisations must prepare knowledgable workers and that education for adults must be lifelong and continuous. Technological advancements at work and in the home have changed the way education is being delivered. Two groups, teacher and learners, have been greatly influenced by these changes as they no longer need to be in classrooms at specified places or times. Computers, the Internet, email, discussion groups, chat rooms, CD-ROMs, video and enhanced telephone links have provided new opportunities for teachers and learners to exploit. Learning can be independent of time, place and pace, which has resulted in a significant change in roles for teachers and learners, who have had to adapt to new educational environments.
NCVER (2002) recently reported that there appears to be relatively little pure online delivery of VET in Australia, and that estimating the size and scope of online learning is not clear due to definitional issues and because online learning is often blended with other approaches. Some estimates report that the use of online learning in a blended delivery model might be less than 2.5% in the Australian VET system, with only a very small proportion using pure online approaches (NCVER, 2002). Other authors concur with this finding and report that online learning and teaching occurs across a range of models, including supplemental, mixed or wholly online (Cannell, 2002; Sutton, 2002). Some argue that pure online learning would rarely be the first choice for students (Warner, Christie & Choy, 1998) and would only be used when other approaches were not available. Harper, Hedberg, Bennett and Lockyer (2000) reported that there is evidence of extensive experimentation and exploration in online learning in VET in Australia, however very little is published.
ANTA supports a range of strategies to achieve its mission of Australia being the world leader in applying technology to learning. One such strategy, the Flexible Learning Leader program, funds professional development programs for leaders in the VET sector (ANTA, 2001). In 2001 NSW Health had its first Flexible Learning Leader from the Central Coast AHS, who reviewed the types of learning models used across the 18 L&D units in NSW Health. All but one unit was using traditional, face-to-face teaching models for the delivery of education. Several constraints impinging on learning within the NSW Health RTO were identified and it was recommended that AHSs within the RTO collaborate towards an integrated RTO, and most importantly, focus on e-learning solutions. It was also recommended that an agency wide e-learning strategic plan be developed and implemented, including an e-learning pilot. Benefits such as reduced duplication of effort and sharing of resources would create greater equity in cost distributions related to the development and utilisation of learning resources.
In 2002 a second Flexible Learning Leader, this time from New England Area Health Service, was funded. The aim of this program was to formulate, and get agreement on, a flexible learning change management plan for the NSW Health RTO following an online learning trial. This project was managed through a working group of staff from six L&D units in NSW Health. The working group held its inaugural meeting in June 2002 and subsequently met monthly/fortnightly in face-to-face meetings, complemented by teleconferencing as the working group members were geographically dispersed. Working group discussions were also conducted using asynchronous online discussion groups, for many group members their first experience with such discussion groups. One of the most significant early decisions was to replace “e-learning” with “flexible” learning, as the working group felt that “e-learning” terminology was threatening to many people and that concepts of flexible learning had not been well explored in the first instance by the RTO.
The first major task for the working group was deciding what type of online learning pilot to offer. Early options included the development and testing of online modules for mandatory training such as fire safety or manual handling, however these were ruled out due to the prohibitive costs associated with content development and the short time frames in which to complete the project. Another innovative idea was to offer an online learning experience which showcased ways to learn and teach in online environments, while at the same time, marketing the new NSW Health RTO website to education staff across the RTO. Another timely contributing factor was the recent changes to the Australian Quality Training Framework, which included changes to the standards governing RTOs. Anecdotal evidence suggested that the technological knowledge and skill level of staff in the RTO was not high overall, so there was a need to include how to use technology in learning in the online course. The decision was taken to develop, implement and evaluate an online learning experience focusing on the RTO, using some basic technological skills such as email, asynchronous discussion groups and Internet searching.
There are various models of online learning and teaching, ranging from learners interacting independently with text on the web through to collaborative models of learning where learners interact in asynchronous online discussion groups, which are facilitated by the instructor (Sutton, 2002). The pedagogical differences between these types of online learning models and traditional classroom and distance education models are many and varied. One of the most significant pedagogical differences relates to the role of the teacher or instructor. In traditional classroom models of teaching and learning, the teacher is considered the “expert” knowledge transmitter, to passive learners. In online learning models, the role of the teacher is that of a facilitator where knowledge is jointly created and shared and the learner is active. Learners are given choices about how much to learn, when to learn and how they will learn. The online course was based on Salmon’s (2002) E-tivities model, where learners interact with each other and with information in asynchronous discussion groups.
One issue, which needed to be considered, was the type of technology available in NSW Health from which to run an online course. Not all AHSs have Intranet sites, there is no standardised e-learning platform, nor funds to establish such a platform. Therefore an accessible, free, Internet based technology was required. Daunt (2002) recommends designing great learning activities irrespective of the technology, and testing different approaches with groups of learners. Asynchronous discussion group software was selected, the same type that the working group had been using. These discussion groups required passwords to access, so were only available to participants in the course.
The course was structured over a six-week period, in which participants were required to complete two to three tasks each week and post responses in the asynchronous discussion groups. Participants received a Learners Support Agreement upon enrolment, which explained their responsibilities in the online learning program. Small group work was included in Weeks 3 and 4 of the course to foster relationship development and achievement of collaborative tasks.
Participants were assigned to one of six groups with a maximum of 16 people per group (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Cannell, 2002). Group membership was based across geographic location so that participants were able to interact with learners from as many different locations and backgrounds as possible. The number of groups was limited by the number of available group facilitators (who were members of the working group).
It was planned that participants would complete a screening test two weeks prior to the commencement of the course to assess whether they had the pre-requisite skills (keyboard and typing skills, access to a computer, literacy/language needs) for online learning. This was, however, not achieved due to short timeframes. Instead, questions about skills needed for, and attitudes towards, online learning were included in the pre- and post- course evaluation questionnaires. The pre-course evaluation questionnaire was completed one to two weeks prior to course commencement and the post evaluation questionnaire was completed as a Week 6 task.
The weeks commenced on a Wednesday and finished on a Tuesday, which was designed to provide participants with the opportunity to complete tasks over the weekend and to complement the demands of the usual working week (Elbaum, McIntyre & Smith, 2002). Each group had a private discussion group established at Northern Inland Online [HREF2], a free web hosted discussion group, based on Discus software [HREF3]. Access to these free discussion groups ceased soon after the course finished.
Each group had a social place, that is, “coffee break” for participants to share information and discuss issues not related to course content. Many authors (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Cannell, 2002; Elbaum, McIntyre & Smith, 2002; Salmon, 2002) recommend the establishment of a social place to provide a space for learners to meet and discuss issues, like they might before, after or during a face-to-face class. It also is a way of humanising the experience and providing some embodiment for the course participants (Palloff & Pratt, 1999).
One week before the course commenced participants received an email from their group facilitator, which detailed instructions for accessing the discussion group and information about the other group members. Participants received an e-mail from the group facilitator at the start of each week detailing the tasks to be completed for that week. Generally, tasks required the participants to locate information about the RTO and it’s standards, and post findings in discussion group.
Participants were given individualised feedback each week, via e-mail, from the group facilitator, about their achievement of tasks for that week. Individualised feedback is essential for maintaining motivation in an online course (Palloff & Pratt, 1999; Elbaum, McIntyre & Smith, 2002). Formal assessment tasks were not part of the course design. Participants however were expected to complete set tasks during the course and received feedback about their progress from their group facilitator. The course was primarily designed as a professional development initiative that would guide future flexible learning initiatives in the NSW Health RTO.
The course was marketed to staff through the L&D Managers. Within ten days of the marketing brief being circulated across NSW Health, 96 people, mostly RTO staff, had enrolled in the course, an unprecedented uptake. As previously mentioned, participants completed a pre- and post-questionnaire to evaluate the learning experience and to contribute to the development of the change management plan for the RTO.
Program evaluation methods included overall and individual group analysis and comparison of:The 96 participants who enrolled came from 15 of the 18 (83%) AHSs, and those who commenced the course came from 13 of the 18 (72%) AHSs. This is a significant collaborative achievement for the RTO given that the RTO is usually quite disparate in terms of operation and function. The course was primarily marketed to L&D staff in the RTO, however other health staff were not excluded. Learning consultants, or in other words education staff from L&D units, constituted the biggest group of participants (32%). The next largest groups were managers (19%) and clinical nurse specialists/consultants/educators (16%).
Of the 84 participants who commenced the course, 48 completed (57%). Completion is defined as those participants who did not withdraw from the course in any week. The overall completion rate, 57%, is consistent with completion rates for other online and distance courses (Robson, 2002). The highest completion rate for a group was 82% and the lowest was 33%. Four of the six groups achieved completion rates above the overall completion rate of 57%. Reasons for non-completion were not routinely collected, unless the participant completed the post-course evaluation questionnaire. Anecdotal feedback from the group facilitators suggests that a combination of technical, workload and time management issues contributed to participants withdrawing. Further qualitative data collected from the evaluation questionnaires relating to these issues will be discussed in the next section.
Withdrawal rates in weeks 4 and 5 were higher than those in other weeks, which may have been due to a significant technological breakdown (hacking of web host), which meant that participants and facilitators could not access the discussion groups for six days. This may have also affected the overall completion rate.
Pre-course evaluation questionnaires were completed by 85 participants and post-course evaluation questionnaires by 57 participants, resulting in 53 pairs (63% of participants who commenced the course), which could be used in the statistical analyses. Participants were required to rate themselves on a 5-point scale (range: 1 = very low, to 5 = very high) on their attitudes (seven items) towards new learning experiences and their skills (ten items) in using technology. These attitudes and skills were based on the course learning objectives.
For the purposes of this project, ordinal level data (5 point Likert scale) was treated as being interval level data. This assumption allows for the calculation of average scores as well as the application of appropriate statistical processes to calculate differences between pre- and post-course scores for each of the 17 items. The calculation of average pre- and post course scores per item is used, in the main, to illustrate the direction of any change as well as to indicate a point of reference on the five point Likert scale. Paired t-test statistical procedures were used to calculate statistically significant differences between pre- and post-course scores for each of the 17 listed items. Comparisons were also calculated for each of the six groups using pre- and post-course scores of relevant participants.
A comparison between the pre- and post-course scores showed that there was no statistically significant difference (p = < 0.05) for any of the groups considered as far as attitude towards new learning experiences is concerned. For the group as a whole (53 participants who completed pre- and post-course scores), a total of four attitudes (comfort communicating in writing, comfort using new technology, belief that high quality learning can take place without face-to-face interaction and the value in sharing life experiences during the learning process) show, compared to the respective pre-course average scores, a slight increase in post-course average scores. As far as individual groups are concerned, the following items showed noteworthy differences:
A different and statistically significant picture is presented when comparing pre- and post-course average scores in respect of the participants’ self-assessed level of all 10 nominated skills. All skill levels showed, compared to their pre-course average, an increase in the average post-course scores. For the group of 53 participants for whom pre- and post-course scores were available, the following four skills show an increase in the average post-course score of one point or more:
Participants who were in Group 5 can be said to have been the most improved group, with a self-assessed positive difference of one point or more in relation to all the 10 skills’ pre- and post-course average scores. Participants in Group 6 showed the least number of improved pre- and post-course average scores, with three skills showing a difference of one point or more (asynchronous discussion group, access documents via hyperlink and use of NSW Health website).
Statistically significant differences ( p = < 0.05) were found for the following items:The post-course evaluation questionnaire included ten questions about the course eg Describe two major benefits of flexible learning. All participants who commenced the course were asked to complete the questionnaire even if they had withdrawn from the course. Post course evaluation questionnaires were completed by 57 (68%) of participants who commenced the course. Participants were asked to describe two major benefits and challenges of flexible learning. The most commonly reported benefit of flexible learning (42 of the 57 respondents, or 74%) was that learners could undertake learning in their own time, followed by learning at their own pace (37%), and at any location (25%). These benefits are consistent with those reported in the literature for distance and online learners (Bates, 1997; Evans & Nation, 1992; NCVER, 2002).
Challenges of flexible learning were also described, with technological infrastructure (as opposed to skills in using technology) being the most frequently reported barrier (25% of the respondents). This was closely followed by barriers relating to self-discipline and self-motivation (23% each). Interestingly, technology was reported as a barrier by only 25% of respondents despite the previously mentioned catastrophic technological breakdown during weeks 4 and 5 of the course. Technological infrastructure may have been reported less frequently as a barrier if this breakdown had not occurred. Palloff and Pratt (1999) describe the concept of “double loop” learning where online learners learn not only about the course content but also the technological processes underpinning the course. The technological breakdown during this online course may have provided an ideal opportunity for the participants, potential online teachers and facilitators, to experience technological instability and its impact on course delivery.
Participants were also asked to describe the changes in delivery of education that they might make as a result of the online learning experience. 75% of respondents stated that they would make changes to the way they delivered education as a result of this experience. 40% reported that they would either deliver online or redesign courses to include an online component, as a result of this experience.
The course also provided an opportunity to expose participants to the new NSW Health RTO website, which was published during the first week of the course, as well as to seek feedback on the website. Participants were asked to describe two good things about, and two ways to improve, the NSW Health RTO website. The most frequently reported aspect (32%) related to the site being informative, while 26% found the site easy to access. Suggestions for improving the website included improving navigation to the RTO information from the homepage (25%).
Feedback was also sought about the role of the facilitator in the learning process. Participants were asked to describe two good things about the role, and two ways it could be improved. 35% of respondents found the facilitators helpful and supportive, and 33% commented that the facilitators provided clear, up to date information and were accessible and approachable. 40% of respondents could not offer any suggestions for ways to improve the role of the facilitator, with 9% suggesting that the facilitator could have facilitated more challenging discussions.
Participants were also asked to comment on the value of the small group work activities in weeks 3 and 4 of the course. Relationship development was identified as the most positive aspect of small group work by 42% of respondents, followed by aspects relating to collaborative learning and sharing of workload. The aspect of small group work least liked related to low levels of participation by other group members (51%) and the difficulties associated with completing tasks when some members were not interacting in the online discussion. Short timeframes for task completion and technical difficulties were also mentioned by 10% of respondents.
Participants were also asked to comment on communicating in an online environment. The most liked aspects of communicating online are similar to the benefits of flexible learning reported earlier, in that learning can be completed at any time (30%) and anywhere (19%). However, the most frequently reported positive aspect of communicating online related to learning, and interacting with people from diverse places (30%). Conversely the least liked aspects of communicating online relate to people not being able to see each other when communicating online (25%), and the asynchronous nature of communicating online (25%).
Finally, participants were asked to describe the types of personal obstacles that prevented them from participating in the course, and strategies that they used to address these obstacles. The most frequently reported obstacles related to existing workload issues (46% of respondents) and time management (39%) with strategies used to address these issues ranging from working at home, working longer hours and rearranging workload. This highlights the need for online learning and teaching to be viewed as a legitimate part of a learner or teacher’s day to day work, and not as an add on, or a task with less priority.
The qualitative data presented suggests the following:NSW Health is a large industry based organisation in which health care is its core business, not learning. Despite this, however, the NSW Health RTO collaborated in the development, implementation and evaluation of an online learning experience on a relatively large scale for the first time. This collaborative endeavour provided a unique opportunity for staff to interact with people from a wide range of physical locations and backgrounds and to contribute to the development of a change management plan for flexible delivery of learning. Another feature of this achievement was that it happened using rudimentary technology and not through a state-wide learning management system.
The online learning experience, based on asynchronous learning models, exposed almost 100 education, management and administrative staff to more flexible approaches to learning and teaching. There was a significant positive change in learners’ skill levels across a range of technological skills that underpin online learning and teaching principles and practices. There were varying degrees of change in attitudes towards new learning experiences as a result of the course. The discussion group software, while rudimentary in many ways, was for the majority of participants their first experience with online learning. This suggests that the overall technological skill level of staff in NSW Health is relatively low, especially in the areas of searching and accessing information on the Internet and using collaborative online communication tools such as discussion groups.
The next step is to implement the RTO’s flexible learning change management plan with particular emphasis on orientating learners, teachers and managers to their changing roles within a flexible learning culture. They will need to acquire further knowledge and skills in flexible and online learning in order to meet the changing needs of the organisation.
There needs, also, to be further collaborative endeavours in the areas of online course delivery and learning resources across the RTO to reduce duplication of effort and increase the efficient use of existing resources. Similarly the implementation of a state wide e-learning platform will need to be a consideration in the mid term for the RTO, for it to compete and remain viable in a national market. L&D managers will be key stakeholders in the implementation of this plan and they need to lead the change. Its implications for an integrated and highly functional RTO are important. This is an ambitious undertaking in any language.
Australian National Training Authority (2001). Flexible Learning for the Information Economy: Australian Flexible Learning Framework for the National Vocational Education and Training System, 2000 – 2004. ANTA, Brisbane.
Bates, A.W. (1997). “The impact of technological change on open and distance learning” in Distance Education, v.18, n.1, p.95-109.
Cannell, D. (2002). “Designing, developing and delivering web-based courseware” in The Eighth Australian World Wide Web Conference Proceedings 2002, Norsearch, Queensland.
Daunt, C. (2002). “Virtual Learning Communities, Where Is the Technology Leading Us?” in Riding the Wave Conference Proceedings, 2002. TAFE Queensland On-line, Queensland.
Elbaum, B., McIntyre, C. and Smith, A. (2002). Essential Elements: Prepare, Design, and Teach Your Online Course. Atwood, Wisconsin.
Evans, T.D and Nation, D. (1992). “Theorising open and distance education” in Open Learning, p.3-13
Harper, B., Hedberg, J., Bennett, S. and Lockyer, L. (2000). The online experience: The state of Australian online education and training practices - Review of research. NCVER, Adelaide.
Hartley, R. (2001). “NSW Health becomes a Registered Training Organisation” in The NSW Public Health Bulletin. NSW Health, State Health Publication ISSN 1034 7674
Mills, M. (2001). “Developing a flexible model of learning for a rural health organisation: a case study” in Education in Rural Australia, v.11, n.1, p.45 - 55
National Council for Vocational Education and Research (2002). Flexibility Through Online Learning. NCVER, Adelaide.
Palloff, R.M and Pratt, K. (1999). Building Learning Communities in Cyberspace: Effective strategies for the online classroom. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco
Robson, J. (2002). “A Framework for Evaluation: Including the Student Who Discontinues” in The Eighth Australian World Wide Web Conference Proceedings 2002, Norsearch, Queensland.
Salmon. G (2002). The key to teaching and learning online. Kogan Page: London.
Sutton, C. (2002). “Delivering Learning Online” in Riding the Wave Conference Proceedings 2002. TAFE Queensland On-line, Queensland.
Warner, D., Christie, G. and Choy, S. (1998). The readiness of the VET sector for flexible delivery including online learning. EdNa-VET Working Group, ANTA, Brisbane.
Woudstra, A. and Murgatroyd, S. (1992). “Responding to change: designing a flexible learning organisation for distance education” in ACDSE Research Monograph v.4, p.43-58.