Designing a TPACK professional development program

As most of my readers know, I started this weblog for one of my master’s courses, taught by Petra Fisser. Now that this course is coming to an end, it’s nice to think about what we’ve actually done, especially during the last weeks. The last weeks were filled with our ‘final assignment’, which included designing either (a) a lesson in which the TPACK model is used or (b) a professional development program for teachers, based on the TPACK model. My group (consisting of Frank, Lotte, Elly and me) chose option b.

I really liked working on this assignment, because it made us think about the practical use of the TPACK model. I think one of the strong parts of this model is that it’s very well applicable in many situations, and that it’s not too hard to use it. So it was nice to think of an example for this. The collaboration within our group went really well, we all had a clear idea about how we should do this, and after we’ve sat together once, everything went smoothly. We were inspired by the lectures of the course, in which the flexibility of the model became clear – you can start from anywhere, be it the technology, pedagogy or content. We had also seen some examples from guest speakers who came from Kuwait, Ghana and Tanzania, where they had all set up a TPACK project for teachers. So we did have an idea about how to design such a professional development program.

I think that one very important issue in our design process is that we all were sure that we should use the teachers’ creativity and experience. Teachers know a lot about teaching, they know how to design lessons (or lesson plans) and they know what works and what doesn’t work. We really wanted to use their experience to make them think creatively and out of the box about the integration of technology in their lessons. We also thought that it’s really important that teachers feel like they have some ownership of the situation. When the professional development trainers just tell them what to do, and the teachers have to do that, they won’t be very motivated for it. They need to be triggered to think, instead of being told what to do, in order to become more motivated to change.

The process for me as an educational designer went pretty well. As I mentioned before, all of us had some clear according ideas about the program. As we all had designed a training or lesson before, we knew very soon what we wanted the design (and the process) to look like. We started defining the goal of the program, because that’s always the basis: that’s where you want to end up with your design. Then we divided some tasks and finally we all reviewed each other’s parts, because this was the most efficient way to design this program.

            Personally, I think that designing with the TPACK model added a new insight on the design process, because it’s such a flexible model. Although the general design process is about the same as those that I’ve been through in earlier design projects at university, the multiple perspectives that the TPACK model implies made me think differently about the components of our design. If you want to teach others a lesson design strategy, you also need to use the same strategy in your own lesson design. This was new for me, to integrate technology in my training design, because I’ve never done this in my bachelor studies in Utrecht before. I had never learned how to use technologies in a training, for example as a support for the ‘students’ (in our case these were the teachers). So that really was something new for me, but I think that it turned out okay. The other group members knew more about this, and when I heard some examples, I could also think of some more.

            Another part of our design that was difficult, was the detailed description of one of the training parts. We chose to write some more about our first training day, because this is the day where a lot of things happen, for example an explanation of the TPACK model. It’s hard to say when the description is detailed enough: do you need to write everything you want to do down, for every five minutes? We didn’t do this, because we thought it would also be clear enough if we would just describe the different lectures and assignments generally, with our ideas about what would happen.

Working with TPACK

Since we were designing a program in which the target group would learn how to integrate the TPACK model in their teaching, we thought it would also be a good idea to use the TPACK model in the design of our own program. If you “practice what you preach”, the teachers would see how this model works and how well it works. So we thought that teachers could communicate in online communities of practice and use Skype, which is a way of integrating technology in education.

            I really liked to work with the TPACK model, because I think that this model is very useful in many situations. It’s such a flexible model, that it’s applicable in almost any situation. There is no set point to start from, you can choose to begin with the technology, pedagogy or content (or combinations of them) and then start thinking about how this can be integrated with the other parts. The flexibility of this model also triggers creativity, because many perspectives are possible. I think creativity is the key to good education (and to solving educational problems; to quote Albert Einstein: “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” [source]). Thinking creatively (or out of the box) is, in my opinion, the only way to gain new perspectives on the situation, which shows new solutions to the problem.

In our professional development program, we started designing for the teachers from the T in the model, i.e. the technology, because in our case, the school had some technological resources (computers and a digiboard) that were not used very often or properly. Our goal was for the teachers to learn how to integrate these already available technologies in their daily teaching practice. The design of the professional development program started from the C (content), because we wanted to teach the teachers on a certain topic: how to use TPACK to integrate technology in your teaching. So we had two starting points, be it on two different levels. In our design, we also used the different perspectives that the TPACK model enables a designer to use. As I mentioned before, I had never designed a training that included technological support for the participants during the training period. But by using the TPACK model it became easier to think of ideas about how to use technologies here, because it encourages your own creativity. I really think that this is a very strong point of the TPACK model.

All in all, I really liked to design a training that is based on the TPACK model, because this model encourages creativity, which to me is the key to solving (educational) problems. It also encouraged mine, which helped me solve some difficulties that I had during the design process. Also, I think that training others to use the TPACK model by using it in your own design is a very strong motivator, because this shows that the thing you’re trying to teach actually works and encourages the creativity of the teachers, so that they will discover that integrating technologies is not that hard, and that it’s fun as well!

How can we stimulate teachers to integrate technology in education?

Even though many schools, at least in western countries such as the Netherlands, have technologies such as digiboards and computers, these are often not integrated in the curriculum. Although sometimes they’re used in education, for example a teachers uses a digiboard to write something to the students, which s/he could also have done with a non-digital whiteboard, the integration is one step further. How could we stimulate teachers to do so?

I think one important way to stimulate teachers to integrate technology in education is by using their own resources (knowledge, skills, experience) to evoke their creativity on this topic. Teachers know a lot about teaching and have a lot of experience with it, which forms a good basis for the addition of technology to their teaching.

Of course, one way to help teachers to become creative, is to let them use the TPACK model when designing their lessons. This makes them able to think out of the box and be as creative as they want.

But another important issue here is that most teachers don’t know that much about technologies. Even if they would want to use more technologies, they wouldn’t know which ones to use or where to get them from. In this respect, I think that teachers should get (or find) more time to explore technologies, so that they know what they do, how they can be used, etcetera. Then the question is: which ones will they explore? There are so many technologies around, how do you pick one? Of course, there are so many technologies, so where would you start? I think the answer is: start with what you already have. In most Dutch schools, there are computers or laptops and often digiboards available, so thinking about how these work might be a really good start. 
Also, a meeting could be organized, to which the teachers can bring a technology from home (e.g. a digital camera, PSP, etc.), which the other teachers get to explore, so that they know about its functions. This would then form the basis for a discussion among teachers on how these technologies could be used in their lessons (in other words: what is the educational value of this technology?). Exchanging ideas and inspiring one another would be a great start, like a spark starting a fire. Getting to know the technology (thus increasing one’s Technological Knowledge (TK), as it’s called in the TPACK model) will help teachers to prepare for the next step: technology integration. Once you know what a technology can do, you can start thinking of ways for using it in your lessons.

Also, showing teachers some good examples of ICT integration in education might be a good inspiration for them to start thinking about how to do this themselves. I’ll post some examples here that will hopefully inspire teachers to start thinking about technology integration in their lessons!

http://www.biggle-toys.com/ (i-blocks: helping children who start to learn to read (Dutch))

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywMCY6eekCs (Augmented reality in 8th graders history project)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKGo9P44saM (Science teacher explaining how integrated technology in her teaching changed her middle school students)

Changing Education Paradigms

 Sir Ken Robinson subtitled by animations from RSA Animate on changing education paradigms. Nice video!

TPACK: The added value of knowledge integration

The TPACK model is based on the PCK model by Shulman (1986, as mentioned in Koehler and Mishra, 2008), which stated that teachers should integrate their pedagogical and content knowledge in their teaching in order to find the best way to explain something to the students. Koehler and Mishra (2008; 2009) added technological knowledge to this, stating that teachers should also integrate technologies in their teaching, as long as these are useful.

The TPACK model is a model that illustrates the integration of (three) different kinds of knowledge of teachers. These are the content knowledge (i.e. knowledge on the subject matter to be learned/taught), pedagogical knowledge (i.e. on pedagogical approaches, roughly: teaching methods) and technological knowledge (i.e. “understand technology broadly enough to apply it productively at work and in […] everyday [life]”).

                These kinds of knowledge can be combined (see Model beneath) into integrated knowledge, for example Technological Content Knowledge, which is knowledge on how to integrate content knowledge with technological knowledge. When all three kinds of knowledge are integrated, this results in TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge).

                This integration of knowledge always occurs within a context, for example a lesson, that implies certain restrictions (for example from the content knowledge: the lesson has to be on a certain topic that the students need to learn about).

The TPACK model (source: http://tpack.org/)

 

In my former posts, I actually explained parts of this model with some examples. I wrote about inquiry learning, which is related to the pedagogical knowledge (PK) of teachers, about how a CMS (a technology) could be of use for different pedagogical approaches, which is about technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK), about a (technological) tool (KPE, an example of a CSCL environment) and how this could be used in education, which is related to technological knowledge (TK) and to technological pedagogical knowledge (TPK).

                My post on flexibility in learning is not directly linked to the TPACK model, but it could be seen as an example of integration of all three kinds of knowledge (i.e. TPACK). When teachers integrate these kinds of knowledge in their teaching, they could become more flexible in their education, because they know more methods to create effective education. This makes it easier for them to adjust their education to different situations, thus enhancing flexibility.

I think that this is the added value of TPACK, that teachers can improve themselves (by acquiring new skills and knowledge) on different relevant fields - content, pedagogy and technology - and integrate these skills and knowledge in their teaching. Teachers continue learning to develop themselves professionally. They keep thinking of ways to improve education, which I think is a good thing.

If you want to hear Koehler and Mishra explaining the model themselves, I would like to recommend you to watch these entertaining videos (in five parts), or at least some of them if you don’t have enough time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNoijjIrPT8 (Part 1).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9gB6AP3BEs (Part 2).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOYCmPUVFfs (Part 3).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_bgeohrV_k (Part 4).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-NhPA9yL3A (Part 5).

References:

- Koehler, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2008). Introducing TPCK. In: AACTE Committee on Innovation and Technology (Ed.) Handbook of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPCK) for Educators. (pp. 3 - 29). New York: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education and Routledge.

- Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70. 

Time for some reflection...

During the last weeks I described topics of flexibility, pedagogies, technologies and how these can be combined. But what have I actually learned?

                One thing I learned is that flexibility in learning is so much more than just distance learning. As I wrote earlier, flexibility is for example related to time, content, entry requirements, instructional approach and delivery. Only this last kind of flexibility is in a way related to distance learning.

                I’ve also been thinking about how different pedagogies can be supported by technology and how a certain kind of technology can support students’ learning. Thinking of concrete examples made it easier to see the practical issues, that can actually occur in education, that come along with designing education to integrate all parts into one lesson or curriculum. Including technology in these designs makes it even more complex, because the possibilities of technology are almost endless.

                I really liked that trying to find ways to integrate different parts of teaching (i.e. the subject matter, pedagogical approach and the use of technologies) forced me to think creatively. There are so many combinations possible, you just have to think about it. There’s not one way to teach. Of course, this is not something new, but it’s nice to think about this and to think about ways in which these different parts can reinforce each other.

The next time I will write about the TPACK model (http://tpack.org/) and think about how this model could be integrating my separate previous thoughts.

KPE: an example of a CSCL environment

In my last blog I already mentioned the CSCL (Computer Supported Collaborative Learning) tool as an example of collaborative learning. This time, I would like to explain this tool (or environment) a little deeper, following a specific example of a CSCL environment: the KPE (Knowledge Practices Environment) designed by KP-Lab, which has its origin in Finland. I got to know about this tool in a course that I took at Utrecht University “Webgebaseerde Leeromgevingen” (Web-based Learning Environments). I always felt that CSCL tools are seen as the best option for collaborative learning, but I’ve doubted its superiority over other tools (such as a combination of BlackBoard and a word processing program).

Let me first describe how the KPE works (see the link to the article by Lakkala et al. (2009) for some screenshots). This environment is designed for groups of students to work collaboratively on university projects. Each group of students has its own space in which they can post useful information, links and ideas to which the other group members can react on the forum or in the chat and which they can edit. Students can connect their ideas by adding vectors, text boxes, etc.

I think that such an environment can help students in organizing their thoughts/ideas and storing these as well as the information on which they are based. In KPE, I especially like that students can not only collect data and analyze them verbally, but that they can also make connections between parts of information with vectors etc, so that relationships between different kinds of text are easier to see. However, I have some doubts about the functions that are integrated in these kinds of environments.

     First of all, I don’t think it is a good idea that the forum option is usually shown in a different screen (or ‘tab’). This means that when you’re discussing the workspace, you have to switch to a different window continuously, which increases the cognitive load.
     My most important critique on this environment is that all students within the group can work together in the same workspace simultaneously. This means that when student A is typing something, student B can immediately delete that (while student A is still writing the rest of the sentence). If I were student A, I would find this very frustrating.

This is why I’m not completely convinced of the ‘superiority’ of CSCL tools over others, such as a combination of a BlackBoard environment (for document storage and discussions) and a word processing program (for document generating). To me, this combination is more powerful, because this doesn’t enable students to delete text while someone is still writing on it. Can you convince me?

Links

• Lakkala, M., Paavola, S., Kosonen, K., Muukkonen, H., Bauters, M. & Markkanen, H.  (2009). Main functionalities of the Knowledge Practices Environment (KPE) affording knowledge creation practices in education. A draft. To appear in the Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 2009 Conference.
• KP-Lab

How can we combine different pedagogies with technologies (such as a CMS)?

Last week we discussed several pedagogical approaches for teachers, that can be used in the classroom. But how can these be combined with using technology? I will discuss five of these approaches and show how I think a CMS (Content Management System) can support them. 

1. Traditional learning (more info)

I’ll start with the pedagogical approach that we’re probably all most familiar to. Traditional learning means that the teacher stands in front of the class and explains the topic, while the students are listening quietly.

This kind of learning still occurs very often, and sometimes (in university more often) is it supported by a CMS. For example, the teacher puts the articles that the students have to read online, as well as the presentation slides, extra information, links to external websites that might be useful, etc. I think that a CMS is a valuable addition to the lectures, because this provides possibilities for students to look further than just the lecture topics, for example with these links to related websites. 

2. Collaborative learning (more info)

This approach is rooted in (social) constructivism and holds that students are working together in groups on tasks that are assigned to them by the teacher. They need to discuss the topic and generate one group solution. Students are actively participating in the classroom, supported by the teacher, who serves as their guide.

A CMS would fit very well to this approach. In many examples of implementation of collaborative learning in the classroom, a CMS-like environment (CSCL – Computer Supported Collaborative Learning environment) is used, in which the students can exchange their ideas, discuss with each other and write in the same document. A ‘regular’ CMS has these functions as well, except for ‘writing in the same document’, which lacks in environments like BlackBoard. Especially its functions for exchanging documents, forming groups and the discussion board can be very useful for collaborative learning, because these tools support the process of working together in groups. The teacher can also have insight in these processes by giving feedback on the documents that are put online in each group, since s/he can also be enrolled in the online student groups environment. I do, however, think that there should be a date set for this, on which the students have to be finished, because otherwise it could interfere with the students’ privacy. Most students don’t like to be interrupted by their teacher when they’re not done yet (I know I don’t like that either). 

3. Inquiry learning (more info)

This pedagogical approach is based on an old saying: “Tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me and I understand.” In the classroom, this means that students should be actively involved in the topic by discovering it. This basically means that the teacher starts with a question to which the students will try to find an answer through exploration and generating new questions (such as: If X is true, then why Y...?). This can happen individually or in groups.

A CMS can support this process in providing space for the students to store their ideas and information that they found on this topic. They can also discuss these and ask questions on the discussion board, when they’re not exploring things together, but are reflecting on their explorations later on. 

4. Problem-based learning (more info)

When this approach is used in the classroom, the lesson (or group of lessons, etc.) starts with a meaningful, complex, ill-defined problem, that is adapted to the students’ level (i.e. ‘hard but doable’). Students work together to find a solution to this problem, they share their mental models, etc. This kind of learning is self-directed (by the student), the teacher is their coach.

I think that this approach can be very well supported by a CMS, just like inquiry learning. Students can store their ideas in their group space and discuss them, so that they can find the best solution to this complex problem. 

5. Workplace learning

This approach takes the workplace of the students as a basis for educational design. This means that the students don’t necessarily learn (or are being taught) in one classroom, but this could als happen outside, in a computer room, in another building, etc. It happens in the environment that suits the learning content (and the teacher’s pedagogies) the best. Students learn in practice, they learn by doing.

I think that this approach can be supported by a CMS in a way that these provide background information for the students (such as: Why are we going to learn in a museum today?), including the schedule, since this might be a complex one. CMSs can be a solid basis for education that takes place in many different environments: the CMS is always there…

I think that a CMS can be a very useful tool in many different kinds of pedagogical approaches, mainly because information and ideas can be stored and the thinking process of the students can be better structured (and stored), so that it’s easier to evaluate the process as well, instead of only the product. What do you think?

Inquiry learning

One of my ‘favorite’ pedagogical approaches, as I may say so, is inquiry learning (or inquiry-based learning), which is about learning through asking questions (question-driven learning). This is a constructivist approach, based on natural learning processes. Inquiry learning holds that students try to find out how something works by asking questions in order to understand the content (as opposed to ‘just’ knowing) and to be able to explain how this works to someone else.

I found two very interesting research articles regarding this approach, each with another perspective on it. One is written by Wu and Hsieh (in 2006) and focuses on the inquiry skills of sixth graders and the other is written by Hogan and Berkowitz (2000), who focus on inquiry guidance by teachers.

Wu and Hsieh (2006) state that students need scaffolds in this process of inquiry learning in order to construct solid explanations. These are to be offered by the teacher, who asks questions to the students in order to help them to understand the content better and by this also helps them to reformulate their explanations.

Hogan and Berkowitz (2000) describe a one-year project in which ecology teachers learn to work according to the inquiry learning approach (i.e. professional development). After this year, most ecology teachers found inquiry learning a good method in ecology teaching. Hogan and Berkowitz mention that it’s important that the students’ explanation needs to be given by the students, which means that teachers should not influence the students’ reasoning too much. This is also referred to by the term ‘scaffolding’: help students more in the beginning and decrease this support during the learning process.

One of the most interesting parts of inquiry learning to me is the role of the teacher. Within this approach, students are to find the explanations themselves, so what does the teacher need to do? They can be guiding them, but to which degree? If they ask too many questions, the students don’t learn anything; but if they ask too little questions, the students might get stuck. Teachers need to find a balance in this, for example by scaffolding. These articles try to find a solution to this dilemma, which makes them really interesting to read.

Link Wu & Hsieh (2006): http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.uu.nl/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=105&sid=62544de4-4c66-4260-a294-9c7fe912c3c7%40sessionmgr111

Link Hogan & Berkowitz (2000): http://www.springerlink.com.proxy.library.uu.nl/content/t3132l26605g4242/fulltext.pdf

New Brunswick way of teaching

I found this very interesting video on Youtube, which basically states that education should be updated according to new standards in society.

Do you realize?

Flexibility in learning

During the last lecture we discussed different kinds of flexibility (learning). One of the most important scientific works on this topic is Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations by Betty Collis and Jef Moonen, published in 2001. They mention five kinds of flexibilities in learning: related to time, content, entry requirements, instructional approach and resources and delivery and logistics. I will explain them and show some (dis)advantages of each kind of flexibility.

Flexibility related to time

This type of flexibility regards to when the course starts/finishes, how much time students have for an assignment, how much time teachers have to correct these assignments and the pace of the student (is s/he a fast or slow learner?) (Collis & Moonen, 2001, figure 1-1).  

If this time is very flexible, this can be an advantage to both the student and the teacher. They can both decide when they would like to pay attention to the learning content, so that it fits in both their schedules. This also makes it possible to treat students as individuals, because they get separate attention. This is beneficial to the student, because then s/he can work in his/her own pace and doesn’t have to wait for the rest of the class when s/he already understood it (or doesn’t have to get frustrated because everyone else is faster than him/her).

However, when there are no set times for lectures, for example, then the student works on the task at one time, sends it to the teacher, who can decide when to look at it. If the teacher only has time the next week, the student has to wait for (the feedback of) the teacher before s/he can continue working. This might interrupt the student’s working pace.  If the student works fast, the teacher might not be able to adjust to that, due to this extreme flexibility – which will not be very convenient for the student.
Also, when both teacher and student can plan their work flexibly, there is a risk of never getting done. One of them can decide to work only one hour per week on a task (because that fits best into his/her schedule), so that it takes a really long time to finish it. This will take even longer when they have to wait for each other in order to continue.

High time flexibility will also raise the work for the teacher, because s/he has to communicate with each student individually. This takes much more time than teaching a whole group at the same time. This implies more teachers needed or more burn-out amongst teachers.

This is why I think that time flexibility is a good thing, but only when there are some restrictions to it. For example, I think that there should be some deadlines (e.g. halfway through the course and in the end) in order to keep the learning process going without too much waiting for either the student or the teacher.

Flexibility related to content

This relates to course topics, sequence of course parts, course orientation (theoretical/practical), learning materials, assessment standards, etc. (Collis & Moonen, 2001, figure 1-1).  

This kind of flexibility already exists to some degree in higher education, where students are free to choose courses outside of their study field. They do, however, also have to take some courses that are obligatory to the program.

Content flexibility makes the students able to choose their own path and profile themselves in order to get a better position in the labor market later on. Choosing courses they like will also make them more motivated, which will be an advantage for the teacher as well.

One disadvantage of this situation is that students will only choose courses that they like but will not be very useful to them. For example, a student can take a course on Russian grammar because s/he is very interested in this, but might not be using this later on (in his/her studies or job).

Also, students who don’t know what they want yet might get overwhelmed by all the courses that are offered by university. They can just randomly take some courses that sound appealing, which might be fun and interesting to them, but can also prolong the study period, because it will take more time before they have a degree in a certain area. This is what the current system implies, as one cannot get a ‘general’ degree after having studied topics that are not very related to each other.

Flexibility related to entry requirements

This kind of flexibility is about conditions for participation (Collis & Moonen, 2001, figure 1-1). When these conditions are very flexible, anyone could enter a course or study program.

               

A positive side of this is that this lack of requirements will attract more people from different backgrounds. This way, students will earn a wider perspective on the topics discussed in class. They will also learn more about social skills and cultural differences. However, when really anyone could enter a course, the prior knowledge of the students will be so different that it’s hard to find a basic point to start from (which is an essential point in education). I do think that people from different backgrounds should be together in one classroom, but their prior knowledge levels should be more or less equal. If it’s not, the differences within the classroom will be too big, which will delay the study progress of students with a higher level of prior knowledge.

Flexibility related to instructional approach and resources

This relates to the social organization of learning (group/individual), language to be used in the course, learning resources and instructional organization of learning (Collis & Moonen, 2001, figure 1-1).

If everyone could choose their own favorite instructional approach, this would be very beneficial to them. A student decides how s/he wants to be instructed. This, again, individualizes, which increases the workload of the teacher immensely. If one student would prefer a behavioristic approach in learning whereas another prefers a constructivist approach, the teacher has to adjust to this.

Another example: language. Students will probably prefer to learn in their own language, but if the teacher doesn’t speak that language, teaching in it will be difficult. Or even more difficult: when the class of students consists of different nationalities, so that they can’t understand each other if they would speak their native language. When the teacher has another native language, the most common solution is to speak a language that is a second or third language to both the students and the teacher (e.g. English or Spanish). This is not beneficial for both parties, but probably the best solution to the problem.

Flexibility related to delivery and logistics

This is about students and teacher not being together at the same place and time, technologies for support and contact, delivery channels for course information and communication (such as Blackboard), etc. (Collis & Moonen, 2001, figure 1-1).

Due to the increasing amount of technology available, teachers and students don’t need to be together at the same time and place anymore. There are many ways to keep in contact, such as Skype, e-mail, Facebook, chatting and many, many others. If you missed a class, you can look up the video-taped version of it online and send the teacher an e-mail if you have a question about it. This can be very beneficial, because the student’s schedule isn’t limited to set lecture times anymore, you just get the lecture anytime you want. The same is true for the teacher: s/he can teach in the middle of the night, record it and put it online for the students.

For me, one big disadvantage of this type of learning is the lack of immediate interaction between student and teacher. In a classroom setting, teachers can adjust their lectures to the verbal or non-verbal signs from the students. For example, if many students look very confused, the teacher will try to explain it once again. The teacher can’t see this while teaching a video camera. This also works the other way around: if a student doesn’t understand the teacher’s story anymore, s/he can’t interrupt the teacher to ask about it right away, so that the student can understand the teacher’s message completely wrong.

To conclude, I think flexibility can be a very powerful addition in education, especially when students and/or teachers from different backgrounds are involved. I do, however, feel that complete flexibility will just cause chaos. When every student can decide on his/her own which courses s/he wants to take, how much time s/he would like to spend on the course content and when s/he would like to have a lecture/get feedback/be assessed etc., which learning approach s/he would prefer, which form of assessment, and which ways of communication s/he would want to use, and how, the possibilities will be countless and different for each student. Add the same possibilities for flexibility for teachers to this, and it will become even more complex. It will be hard to find a way through it. 

However, a less extreme kind of flexibility will be very valuable, because both students and teachers will get more out of the education. The student can study what s/he wants, but with a clear goal and a time limit.  

Teachers and students can be individuals, who do what they want, but within the boundaries of practicality.

Source:

Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001, second printing 2002). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and expectations. London: Kogan Page.