INDIVIDUALISATION IN FLEXIBLE LEARNING, FROM A POST-POST-FOUNDATIONALIST PERSPECTIVE

J L van der Walt

doi:10.25159/0256-8853/591

Authors

J L van der Walt Unit for Education and Human Rights in Diversity North-West University Potchefstroom, South Africa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25159/0256-8853/591

Keywords:

flexible learning, open distance learning, blended learning, flexible course design, instructional design, foundationalism, postmodernism, post-post-foundationalism, individualisation

Abstract

Most practitioners in the field of flexible learning seem to be sufficiently aware of the importance of catering to the needs of their students. However, it appears that many are rather more conscious of the needs of the students as a group than as individuals per se. Others seem to be rather more concerned about the technology involved. After touching on the foundationalist and non-, post- or anti-foundationalist approaches to the problem of individualisation in flexible learning, the article discusses a number of guidelines for individualisation from a post-post-foundationalist perspective. This is followed by a section in which these guidelines are presented in practical terms. This outline of guidelines reveals that attempting to individualise from this perspective is no simple and straightforward matter, but that there might be practitioners in the field of flexible learning (open distance learning and blended learning) who already are following this approach as a best practice. A post-post-foundationalist approach to individualisation in flexible learning offers practitioners in the field a whole new vocabulary.

References

Angelopulo, G. 2013. Student satisfaction and retention: Assessment in an ODL environment. Progressio 35(1): 8âˆ’38.

Bloom, P. 2009. Review of Marchart, Oliver. 2007. Post-foundational thought: Political difference. In H-Ideas, H-Net Reviews, Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau, 1âˆ’3.

Boeve, L. 2000. â€˜Katholiekeâ€™ universiteit: Vier denkpistes. Ethische Perspectieven 10: 250âˆ’256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2143/EPN.10.4.504077

Collis, B. and J. Moonen. 2001. Flexible learning in a digital world. In t. N. Open University, E-learning: Wat, waarom en hoe? 23âˆ’48. Heerlen, Netherlands: Open University, Netherlands.

Drennan, J., J. Kennedy and A. Pisarski. 2005. Factors affecting student attitudes towards flexible online learning in Management Education. The Journal of Educational Research 98(6): 331âˆ’338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.6.331-338

Errington, E. 2004. The impact of teacher beliefs on flexible learning innovation: some practices and possibilities for academic developers. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 41(1): 39âˆ’47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1470329032000172702

Khoza, S. B. 2013. Can they change from being digital immigrants to digital natives? Progressio 35(1): 54âˆ’71.

Machika, P. 2013. The alignment of institutional and student commitment to student needs. Progressio 35(1): 91âˆ’103.

Marchart, O. 2007. Post-foundational thought: Political difference in Nancy, Lefort, Badiou and Laclau. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748624973.001.0001

Marjanovic, O. and M. E. Orlowska. 2000. Making flexible learning more flexible. International Workshop on Advanced Learning Technologies, 59âˆ’62. Palmerston North.

Muller, J. C. 2011. Postfoundational practical theology for a time of transition. HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 67(1): Art #836. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v67i1.837

Nikolova, I. and B. Collis. 2002 (1998). Flexible learning and design of instruction. British Journal of Educational Technology 29(1): 59âˆ’72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8535.00046

Peters, K. 2005. Learning on the move: Mobile technologies in business and education. Australian Flexible Learning Framework: http://hdl/voced.edu.au/10707/132637(accessed 9 February 2014).

Prinsloo, P. 2013. Becoming and being editor. Progressio 35(1): 1âˆ’7.

Rorty, R. 1991. Objectivity, relativism and truth. Philosophical Papers. Vol. I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173643

Rorty, R. 1996. Pragmatism and Philosophy. In Philosophy: End or Transformation? Ed. K. B. Baynes, 26âˆ’66. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Sadler-Smith, E. and P. J. Smith. 2004. Strategies for accommodating individualsâ€™ styles and preferences in flexible learning programmes. British Journal of Educational Technology 35(4): 395âˆ’412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00399.x

Schrag, C. O. 1992. The resources of rationality: A response to the postmodern challenge. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Schults, F. L. 1999. The veritable ideal of systematicity: a post-foundationalist construal of the task of Christian Theology. Paper presented to the Systematic Theology Group of the AAR. Boston, MA.

Sims, R. 2003. Promises of interactivity: aligning learner perceptions and expectations with strategies for flexible and online learning. Distance Education 24(1): 87âˆ’103. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01587910303050

Van Huyssteen, J. W. 2006. Alone in the world? Human uniqueness in science and theology. The Gifford Lectures. Grand Rapids, MI: W E Eerdmans.

Van Huyssteen, J. W. 2007. Response to critics. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 28(3): 409âˆ’432.

Van Huyssteen, J. W. 2006b. When our bodies do the thinking: Theology and science converge. American Journal of Theology and Philosophy 27(2): 127âˆ’153.

Van Zyl, J. M. and E. J. Spamer. 2013. Contact class attendance: Imperative for academic success of ODL students? Progressio 35(1): 225âˆ’250.