Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nile20

Interactive Learning Environments

ISSN: 1049-4820 (Print) 1744-5191 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nile20

Towards flexible learning for adult learners inprofessional contexts: an activity-focused coursedesign

Sarah Cornelius , Carole Gordon & Aileen Ackland

To cite this article: Sarah Cornelius , Carole Gordon & Aileen Ackland (2011) Towards flexiblelearning for adult learners in professional contexts: an activity-focused course design, InteractiveLearning Environments, 19:4, 381-393, DOI: 10.1080/10494820903298258

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820903298258

Published online: 15 Oct 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1173

Citing articles: 11 View citing articles

Towards flexible learning for adult learners in professional contexts: an

activity-focused course design

Sarah Cornelius*, Carole Gordon and Aileen Ackland

School of Education, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

(Received 28 January 2009; final version received 12 August 2009)

This article argues for a flexible model of learning for adults which allows them tomake choices and contextualise their learning in a manner appropriate to theirown professional practice whilst also developing as a member of a learningcommunity. It presents a design based around online ‘learning activities’ whichdraws on ideas of constructivism, collaborative learning and reflective practice.The model was developed for adult learning in Higher Education, and has beenadapted and extended to a number of different programmes. Implementation ofthe model for the Teaching Qualification (Further Education) has been thesubject of an interpretative evaluation using a multiple methods approach.Learners’ experiences of this programme together with issues associated with theapplication of the model to other programmes are discussed.

Keywords: flexible learning; online learning activities; course design; adultlearning

Background

The popular discourse of learner-centredness in adult learning settings stresses theneed for flexible approaches that can accommodate individual learner character-istics, preferences, motivations and goals. Online learning can be an attractive optionas it appears to offer individual flexibility and choice, particularly in terms ofaffording opportunities to learn where and when it suits an individual. It has tendedto attract ‘students who value the freedom and independence of time and place’(Anderson, 2008, p. 52). The concept of flexible learning, and particularly onlinelearning, therefore contains assumptions of independent learning.

Ausburn (2004), in a study of adult learners in the US, found that designelements favoured by learners in blended online learning included ‘personalrelevance in what they learn, participation in setting their learning outcomes basedon their real-world needs, self-direction of their learning resources and pathways,and establishment of an active learning community’ (p. 335). The first three of theseelements reflect individual flexibility and relate to well-established ideas about adultlearning which stress the importance of individual self-direction (e.g., Knowles, 1980;Rogers, 2002). There is some tension, however, between this focus on individuallearning and the final element identified by Ausburn, the desire for an ‘active

*Corresponding author. Email: s.cornelius@abdn.ac.uk

Interactive Learning Environments

Vol. 19, No. 4, September 2011, 381–393

ISSN 1049-4820 print/ISSN 1744-5191 online

� 2011 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/10494820903298258

http://www.informaworld.com

learning community’. This acknowledges principles derived from social constructi-vism (Vygotsky, 1978) and models of social learning such as communities of practice(Lave & Wenger, 1991), which emphasise the importance of interaction and socialparticipation in group learning. It has been shown (see for example, Bober &Dennen, 2001; Gabriel, 2004; Hill, 2006) that a successful ‘active learningcommunity’ in an online environment requires participants to take ‘corporateresponsibility’ (Pachler & Daly, 2006, p. 64) for building and sustaining communitythrough participation and collaboration. The notion of ‘corporate responsibility’implies that learners have an obligation to others and will modify their ownbehaviour appropriately.

There appears, therefore, to be a paradox associated with flexibility andindividuation and the need for social participation. ‘Participation in a community oflearners almost inevitably places constraints on [. . .] independence’ (Anderson, 2008,p. 52) and ‘the higher and richer the form of communication the more restrictions itplaces on independence’ (Anderson, 2008, p. 56).

In developing a flexible programme of study for professionals we were consciousof this tension between the personal and the social and sought to manage this indynamic ways which would be productive for group learning and for placingindividual learning in the context of professional practice. The model presented inthis article, therefore, combines an online element, in which freedom and self-direction are encouraged, with collaborative assessment tasks which require thatindividuals bring the products of their independent learning as a negotiatedcontribution to a group product.

The ideas reported here are the outcome of a full year of design and developmentwork on the Teaching Qualification (Further Education) – TQ(FE) – by theprogramme team at the University of Aberdeen, supported by representatives fromFE and invited experts. This was followed by 2 years of research to evaluate andrefine the model. Experiences from the application of the model to the TQ(FE) arediscussed and other implementations and further possibilities for development areconsidered. Please note that the term ‘programme’ has been used throughout thisarticle to refer to the whole of a study experience such as the TQ(FE). The TQ(FE)programme at the University of Aberdeen is taken as an in-service programme byover 100 lecturers from colleges across Scotland each year. It consists of four 15credit courses at level 9 on the Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework. Theactivity-focused model has been applied at course level, but some underpinningelements are relevant across the whole programme of three taught courses.

Towards a flexible activity-focused model: underpinning ideas

In this section, the key ideas which provide the foundations for the model –acknowledgment of learner diversity, constructivist learning, learning communitiesand reflective practice – are outlined.

Adult learners on any programme of study are diverse. They bring differenteducational, cultural, professional and personal stories and experiences to theirlearning. They come with varying levels of self-esteem as learners and confidence intheir own abilities. Participants may come from a range of vocational areas, eachwith distinctive professional identities and practices. Acknowledging these differ-ences is one thing, responding to them as course designers is quite another. Despiteour best efforts, it is impossible to accommodate every learner’s needs and

382 S. Cornelius et al.

preferences, address all possible cultural contexts and respond to differingmotivation and interest levels. Sims (2008) advises that ‘the learner should takeresponsibility for his/her own individuality and cultural diversity . . . this allows thedesigner to focus on strategy and activity, while the learner provides localis[ation]and contextualis[ation]’ (p. 159). Sims’ approach, which the activity-focused modelpresented in this article advocates, requires learners to take considerableresponsibility for their own learning and provides an opportunity to meet individualneeds and interests.

The basic tenet of the design of the model is constructivism. Learners areresponsible for constructing their own understanding of the course subject matter bydeveloping a dynamic relationship between new knowledge, previous experience andtheir current professional context. The new understandings as applied to theirpractice are personal and unique. In the TQ(FE) context, the developmental processinvolves the renegotiation of professional identity, not merely as a vocational subjectexpert, but as a teacher. This new identity is constructed in the social context of alearning community of FE practitioners. Individuals are therefore also involved inthe social construction of shared meanings about what it is to be a teacher in an FEcontext.

For the reconstruction of the professional self towards a shared identity whichtranscends discrete vocational areas, the community requires shared meanings,values and practices. In an academic context, the requirement is for participants tomove away from discussing the concrete examples of their practice to begin toexplore wider conceptual issues. This requires a learning community in whichmaking practice explicit becomes routine. Participants gradually adopt appropriatediscourse practices – in TQ(FE) they begin to speak like teachers.

Learners in a professional context should develop and enhance skills in reflectivepractice, and recognise and acknowledge the benefits of being a reflectivepractitioner (Schon, 1987). Techniques for encouraging the development of skillsin reflection based on the work of writers such as Brookfield (1995) and Moon (2004)have been key influences behind the design, and provision has been made throughoutthe model for the development and practice of skills in reflection.

Reflective practitioners frequently operate within a community of practice(Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002), and through the approach of collaborativelearning, principally using team work to address real, learner-identified professionalproblems and issues, the model encourages the development of a community ofenquiry (Lipman, 1991). This learning community will develop research skills andexplore common interests in issues surrounding their practice. The development ofan appropriate collaborative approach is supported by incorporating ideas fromCritical Skills (Weatherley, Bonn, Kerr, & Morrison, 2003), whereby a focus onproblem solving, critical thinking, creativity, communication, organisation, manage-ment and leadership are encouraged through engagement in creative and practicalteam tasks.

It would seem that there is no one theory of online design that fully incorporatesall these ideas, although they are evident in the work of other researchers and coursedevelopers. Fisher, Coleman, Sparks, and Flett (2007) recognise the value of solvingwork-related challenges through engagement with theory, within a context of peersupport, to help adult learners internalise learning in a meaningful way. The overalldesign for TQ(FE) is also in line with the guidelines for effective web design forauthentic learning developed by Herrington, Oliver, and Herrington (2007).

Interactive Learning Environments 383

Wideman, Owston, and Sinitskaya (2007) have identified the factors critical forsuccess in transforming teacher practice. Amongst these are the development of acohesive and focused learning community built through the use of face-to-facesessions; a user-friendly portal interface design; formative feedback and opportu-nities for teachers to experiment with new teaching practices in a context thatprovides effective mentoring and collegial support. Another useful concept is that of‘knowledge building’. Scardamalia and Bereiter (2003) distinguish learning andknowledge building. Learning is an individual, internal, unobservable process thatresults in changed skills, beliefs or attitudes. Knowledge building, on the other hand,results in the creation or modification of new shared, public knowledge.

Conceptualisation and design of the activity-focused model

The activity-focused model permits the flexible delivery of content to learners. Itaims to:

– provide flexibility in study routes for individual learners to meet individualneeds and interests;

– encourage autonomy and independent learning, by requiring decision makingand planning;

– provide variety in the format and style of resources (e.g., audio, visual, textbased) to address differing learning styles and preferences and accommodateinequalities in technological resource availability and

– support collaborative enquiry into common professional problems.

To meet these aims a set of learning activities is provided as the core of eachcourse. They are ‘tasks involving interactions with information to attain a specificlearning outcome’ (Littlejohn, Falconer, & McGill, 2008). They are generally small‘chunks’ of learning, for example:

– a research article with associated questions.– a quiz for which learners should compare and discuss their results.– discussion of a case study scenario and development of a strategy for dealing

with a situation.– collaborative development of a definition for a key term.– sourcing and sharing resources on a particular topic.

The only structure imposed on the activities is that they are grouped under a setof key terms into a ‘Learning Lexicon’. Within the Learning Lexicon all activitiestake a consistent format, which includes a title, short description of the task, anyresources required (or links to these) and a reflection proforma. Learners areencouraged to use the proforma to record and collate reflections on issues such as theapplication of their learning to practice for all activities completed. Discussionis encouraged by explicit or implicit links to such spaces as online discussionforums, which can be mandatory or voluntary depending on the preferences offacilitators.

The model is summarised in Figure 1. In practice a learner would first view aLearning Lexicon and from this select a term of interest. A list of potential activitieswould then be displayed from which a selection could be made (Figure 2).

384 S. Cornelius et al.

Figure 1. The activity-focused model.

Figure 2. Examples of components of the activity-focused model. (a) a learning lexicon; (b) alexicon term; (c) a learning activity.

Interactive Learning Environments 385

Activities can be undertaken independently by individuals, by small studygroups, collaborative teams or by a whole tutor group with the guidance of afacilitator. To respond to differing starting points in learners’ knowledge andinterests, no recommended order through the activities is suggested, so learners needto plot their own journey. A larger number of activities is provided than learners areexpected to complete within the course duration, so learners must make choices toensure a manageable workload. In addition, the learners are encouraged not toregard the Learning Lexicons as complete, finished sets of resources for their study,but to explore further if they wish and locate other resources relevant to their owninterests. Illustrative Internet searches are provided to support these explorations aswell as collections of links collated using social bookmarking software. Theapproach overall reflects the idea suggested by Sims (2008) that a mix of learner-prompted and teacher-prompted strategies are appropriate because differentstrategies will work for different learners.

Resources in a variety of media are available to learners. Diversity has beenincluded to accommodate different study preferences and learning styles, toencourage interaction with materials, and to improve motivation to exploreresources. Resources include tutor-produced materials, which are stored as simplelearning objects in a learning object repository; scanned copies of articles andchapters not available by any other means (subject to copyright restrictions) andlinks to additional external resources where appropriate. The model reinforces theidea of the tutor as ‘guide’ rather than expert, as activities are authored by a widevariety of contributors. A single voice does not dominate the resources and multipleperspectives on key ideas can be considered by participants.

The model offers a transparency not seen in most course designs – all of theactivities associated with a course are in the Learning Lexicon, whether these will befacilitated by a tutor or not, and this provides both students and tutors withflexibility to respond to emerging needs as necessary. In addition, the unstructuredpresentation of activities makes updating, deletion and replacement of individualactivities efficient – more can be added quickly and edits made to one without anyknock-on effects on others.

The model places the activities within the context of other course resources andprocesses (Figure 3). These additional elements help to provide motivation forengagement with the Learning Lexicons (e.g., assignment requirements, collabora-tive investigation topics, workshops), support (e.g., tutorials, discussions) andcontextualisation within learners’ practice (e.g., reflective diaries). Together theseelements help to link academic study with professional practice and support thedevelopment of reflective practitioners operating within a learning community.

Implementation issues

An evaluation of the impact of the model on tutors and learners has been undertakenin the context of the first programme to implement this approach – the TQ(FE). Aninterpretative evaluation was undertaken using a multiple methods approach,drawing mainly on qualitative data, with use made of quantitative data whereappropriate. The data were collected through a structured reflective conversationwith all tutors teaching on the programme in 2006/2007 (n ¼ 5); the review ofartefacts and other data (including tutor reflective blogs; WebCT use statistics andstudents’ reports of use of the online resource materials) and interviews with tutors

386 S. Cornelius et al.

(n ¼ 5) and a sample of students (n ¼ 11). A full review of tutors’ experiences ispresented by Cornelius and Gordon (2008a). In this article, we focus on the lessonsthat have been learned during 2 years of successful implementation of theprogramme which have prompted further development of the activity-focusedmodel and would help to ensure success in other contexts. These issues include theprovision of support, facilitating the development of a personal narrative anddevelopment of appropriate study skills and strategies.

Providing support

Support for adult learners is an important issue and is particularly important at theoutset of a programme, where it is required to help develop a familiarity with thelearning process as well as learning objectives. Evaluation with tutors deliveringthe TQ(FE) programme (Cornelius & Gordon, 2008a) revealed that difficulties werefaced when trying to explain the activity-focused model to learners and that therewas a feeling that the course was ‘invisible’, with nothing tangible (e.g., paperdocuments) to provide reassurance. It is important therefore that significantattention is given to explaining this innovative course model to tutors and in turnto learners. In particular, clear statements of expectations are helpful – for examplethat planning of study routes is required by learners and that they are not expected tocomplete every activity in a course.

The value of support from peers should not be underestimated. The TQ(FE)participants rated this highly along with support from tutors and family. Developingan atmosphere of group cohesion and an environment in which issues can be openlyshared and discussed will encourage learners to help each other. In particular, the

Figure 3. The learning activities in context.

Interactive Learning Environments 387

development of the learning community through work in collaborative groups helpsindividuals to address concerns and develop skills to assist them with their studies.Where IT skills are less well developed participation in group activities can also be ofhuge benefit.

The model offers the opportunity to provide support and gradually withdraw thisas learners become more independent and autonomous. In the TQ(FE), support isreduced as the programme progresses by providing smaller lexicons with eachsuccessive course, by encouraging learners to develop their own activities, and byrequiring learners to source more of their own materials.

Developing personal narrative

In a traditional distance learning model there is often a written narrative, whichmight include reference back and forward within materials and may be used toprovide coherence to a course (Weller, Pegler, & Mason, 2003). The same approachis frequently observed in online courses which require adherence to strict timetablesand orders of study. Providing a detailed study timetable might be particularlyhelpful for those learners who crave structure and instruction, but this idea wouldseem to be at odds with the desire for flexibility. The TQ(FE) has used variousdevices to encourage the development of a narrative relevant to participants’practice. These include self-assessment, collaborative investigations, assessment tasksand the use of keywords. Keywords can be provided at term level (Figure 1b) or atactivity level to help indicate where and how links can be made between topics andthemes.

To help learners’ develop initial ideas for a path through the activitiescomprehensive self-assessment is promoted. Learners are asked to reflect on andassess their skills and knowledge against the professional standards for Lecturers inFE (Scottish Executive, 2006). They are encouraged to return to this self-assessmentat intervals during the course and revise their approach to the activities asappropriate.

Collaborative investigations into professional issues and challenges selected bythe participants themselves help learners develop a sense of direction and purposethrough the activities. Similarly assignment activities, which build on the workundertaken for collaborative investigations, help learners develop their ownnarrative structure to the resources available.

This overall approach, encasing the activities within a framework of collabora-tive and reflective endeavour, helps to overcome some of the criticisms levelled atunstructured courses based on a learning-object approach where a lack of narrativestructure and organisation can be encountered (Thorpe, Kubiak, & Thorpe, 2003).In the TQ(FE) participants’ own practice provides the narrative and context for theirlearning and this feature is reinforced by the emphasis on reflective practicethroughout. Sims and Stork (2007) advocate this approach with their assertion thatdesign should focus ‘on the individual learner achieving meaningful and situatedoutcomes from their engagement and encounters with a course of study’ (p. 6).

Learners’ study choices, strategies and skills

The activity-focused model allows learners a great deal of flexibility and demandsthat they make choices about what to study to complete their own ‘version’ of a

388 S. Cornelius et al.

course. An investigation into learners’ experiences of undertaking the programme(Cornelius & Gordon, 2008b) revealed that learners are generally positive about theflexibility offered and value the opportunity to explore interests and needs, and thatthere are some patterns in the strategies they adopt to navigate the materials.

It is recognised that individual learners will exhibit different cognitive styles,instructional preferences, and adapt to different learning situations by adoptingdifferent learning strategies as they interact with learning tasks (Sadler-Smith &Smith, 2004). Three different strategies of engagement with activities have beenidentified from interviews with TQ(FE) participants and examination of coursestatistics (Cornelius & Gordon, 2008b). These are those of the ‘universalists’ (whostudy almost everything available), ‘butterflies’ (who dip in and out of materials) and‘changelings’. Changelings altered their strategies as the programme progressed – forexample starting as universalists and becoming more butterfly-like as they developconfidence with the course, or tending more towards a universalist approach as timegoes on and interest increases. One changeling found the online resources initiallyoverwhelming, and he did ‘an intense amount of reading’. By the end of the course,he reported ‘doing more dipping into it’. Another changeling moved in the oppositedirection. She ‘started by playing really really safely’, being wary of online resourcematerials. But then ‘this changed as I went along’ and she found that she ‘began totake more risks with it’. Similarly, another student reported an increase in confidencewith this way of working, and a change from using ‘less of it in the beginning andmore towards the end’. Tutors identified another group – the ‘minimalists’. Aminimalist approach could be the result of lack of confidence with the model of theprogramme or concerns as a result of the lack of structure. Evidence of non-use ofonline learning resources in a blended learning context was also found by Orton-Johnson (2009), although her conclusions that rejection of materials was ‘related to atrust in traditional texts and authentic academic knowledge and an instrumental andstrategic approach to study’ (p. 1) do not appear to apply to TQ(FE), perhapsbecause TQ(FE) participants are not traditional undergraduate students with deeplyembedded trust in academic sources.

The self-assessment, collaborative investigations and assignments used to helpprovide narrative clearly have a role here too in developing a learner’s ‘learningjourney’ and helping them make choices within the resources provided. The use ofvisual aids, including concept maps of the lexicon content, are also helpful, as well asperiodic reviews of progress, particularly in the early stages of the programme.

Restrictions on the choices learners can make are sometimes technologicallydetermined, resulting from problems such as non-availability of devices for multi-media elements or difficulties with access to computers. This is an issue that can beaddressed during induction, by checking that appropriate resources are available orby reemphasising that there is no need to cover every activity during one’s studies.

Towards development of the model

The activity-focused model is still under development. To date, the model has beenimplemented in two Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) and experimentsundertaken with a third. A key feature is that any of the activities in a LearningLexicon can be undertaken by a learner in any order. However, the visualpresentation of the Learning Lexicon has been a compromise given the hierarchicalstructures and limitations imposed by the software (in Figure 2 this is WebCT which

Interactive Learning Environments 389

imposes a grid format). A presentation device which helps to reinforce the freedomwhich learners have to visit the terms and the activities within them in any orderwould be preferable. Although technical ‘workarounds’, including using graphicaldevices to provide access to activities, might be possible, one of the aims of the modelhas been to keep implementation within a VLE simple so that updating and editing ispossible by members of the course team without constant recourse to technicalexperts.

A sophisticated search facility that would encourage exploration of the materialsusing key terms relevant to learners’ interests and needs is another area requiringattention. In none of the VLEs employed to date have the search tools available beensophisticated enough to allow a search by key terms to reveal activities relevant to atopic of interest.

The ease of updating of activities has been a major advantage of the activity-focused model. However, the more substantive benefit has been the repurposing ofthe model and activities for other programmes. In particular, elements of the modelhave been adapted for a new short professional development course for FE lecturersand a new TQ(FE) at postgraduate level. In the former, some elements of the modelhave been changed. For example, in keeping with the style of the facilitators of thiscourse an order has been suggested for some of the activities to help generate anappropriate narrative.

A postgraduate version of the TQ(FE) has also been implemented which uses thesame activities and the same Learning Lexicons. The learners on the undergraduateand postgraduate programmes engage in the same face-to-face workshops andundertake collaborative investigations together. The different academic requirementsof the two programmes are met by providing some additional activities to helppostgraduate students develop appropriate research and study skills and they engagein separate assessment tasks. This feature, allowing the same Learning Lexicons tobe used towards different exit qualifications, adds to the flexibility of the model.

Some ideas have been taken forward as part of implementation of the model inanother programme, the Teaching Qualification in Adult Literacies (TQAL), andinclude changes in presentation, development of online reflection opportunities andin the overall programme design. In TQAL a jigsaw metaphor has been employed,with each lexicon term represented by a jigsaw piece. Learners are encouraged toview the resources as an incomplete jigsaw in which the pieces can be fitted togetherin any pattern, and in which meaning is achieved when the pieces are inter-related. Inaddition, learners bring their own pieces to the jigsaw. A Learning Lexicon is usedonly for the first course out of three in the TQAL programme. The focus at the startof the programme is on developing a learning community through engagement withthe activities in the Learning Lexicon, and as time progresses the focus becomesmore on the development of a community of practice. Subsequent courses employdifferent design approaches and technologies (e.g., blogs for discussion of actioninquiry projects and wikis for collaborative writing) to facilitate the professionaldevelopment journey of participants.

Future development

Other potential applications for the model could be in programmes which arecompletely at a distance. In this instance, collaborative elements could be supportedthrough the use of social computing tools including collaborative writing, discussion

390 S. Cornelius et al.

and chat tools. Induction and support may prove particularly challenging issues inthis context and will deserve attention. A completely online version of the TQ(FE) isin the early stages of development at the time of writing and will allow opportunitiesto explore some of the issues raised by this application of the model.

Alternative implementations could support blended learning with a greateremphasis on face to face contact. An interesting area for further exploration wouldbe the development of a Learning Lexicon to support a campus-based programme.This would allow the wider applicability of the model to be assessed and help toidentify possible limitations. Implementation with learners who are not adultprofessionals would also be worthwhile to help assess the implications of the modelin a context where learners are less likely to have a well-developed awareness of theirown learning skills and strategies.

All the developments outlined are underpinned by the concepts of creativity inlearning and of the social nature of learning, and are seen to move in the direction ofhigher levels of functional organisation in education (Scardamalia and Bereiter,2005).

Conclusions

The activity-focused model outlined in this article offers flexibility to learners andtutors, addresses both personal and social elements of learning, and has provedmalleable enough to be implemented in a variety of blended programmes, albeit thatmost to date are within the education domain and involve adult professionals.Assessment of the wider applicability of the model requires further testing, inparticular to address different learning contexts, including courses delivered entirelyonline and those in different subject areas.

Initial implementation of the model in the selection of contexts outlined abovehas revealed some of the critical factors for success. Issues which need particularattention in any context include induction and early support for learners to helpthem develop their own narrative through the programme, the development of aneffective and supportive community of learners to work together on shared issuesand problems, and an appreciation of the different strategies adopted by learners.

Acknowledgements

The TQ(FE) tutors and students who responded to questionnaires and took part in reflectiveconversations and interviews are thanked for their contributions to this research. Do Coyle,Chris Aldred and two anonymous referees provided helpful comments on earlier drafts of thisarticle. Some sections of this article are based on a conference presentation made at Ed-Media2008.

Notes on contributors

Sarah Cornelius is a lecturer in the School of Education, University of Aberdeen and a tutoron the Teaching Qualification (Further Education). She has a background in GeographicalInformation Systems and online learning and has worked in the private and Higher Educationsectors. Her current research interests lie in the design, facilitation and evaluation oftechnology-enhanced learning, particularly online and mobile role play and simulations. Sarahis also an Associate Lecturer with the Open University, tutoring on the MA in Online andDistance Learning.

Carole Gordon is a lecturer in the School of Education, University of Aberdeen and a tutor onthe Teaching Qualification (Further Education). She has worked in Further and Higher

Interactive Learning Environments 391

Education for over 20 years. She has interests in the promotion of quality systems, and currentresearch includes investigation into online environments for professional learning, particularlyusing role play and simulations.

Aileen Ackland is a lecturer in the School of Education, University of Aberdeen and a tutor onthe Teaching Qualification (Further Education). She has a background in Adult andCommunity Learning and is Curriculum Leader of the Scottish Consortium of HE and FEpartners, which was contracted by Scottish Government to develop and pilot the newTeaching Qualification (Adult Literacies). She is currently undertaking a PhD on changingtheories of practice in Adult Literacies teaching and learning.

References

Anderson, T. (2008). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), Theory andpractice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 45–74). Edmonton, Canada: AU Press.

Ausburn, L. (2004). Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended onlineeducation environments: An American perspective. Educational Media International,41(4), 327–337.

Bober, M.J., & Dennen, V.P. (2001). Intersubjectivity: Facilitating knowledge construction inonline environments. Educational Media International, 38(4), 241–250.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Cornelius, S., & Gordon, C. (2008a). Providing a flexible learner-centred programme:Challenges for educators. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 33–41.

Cornelius, S., & Gordon, C. (2008b, July). Universalists, butterflies and changelings: Learners’roles and strategies for using flexible online resources. Paper presented at the Ed-Mediaconference, Vienna, Austria.

Fisher, M., Coleman, C., Sparks, P., & Plett, C. (2007). Designing community learning in web-based environments. In B. Khan (Ed.), Flexible learning in an information society (pp. 36–49). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.

Gabriel, M.A. (2004). Learning together: Exploring group interactions online. Journal ofDistance Education, 19(1), 54–57.

Herrington, J., Oliver, R., & Herrington, A. (2007). Authentic learning on the web: Guidelinesfor course design. In B. Khan (Ed.), Flexible learning in an information society (pp. 26–35).Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.

Hill, J.R. (2006). Flexible learning environments: Leveraging the affordances of flexibledelivery and flexible learning. Innovative Higher Education, 31(3), 187–197.

Knowles, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy.New York: Association Press.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lipman, M. (1991). Thinking in education. New York: Cambridge University Press.Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I., & Mcgill, L. (2008). Characterising effective eLearning resources.

Computers and Education, 50(3), 757–771.Moon, J. (2004). Reflection in learning and professional development. London:

RoutledgeFalmer.Orton-Johnson, K. (2009). ‘I’ve stuck to the path I’m afraid’: Exploring student non-use of

blended learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(5), 837–847.Pachler, N., & Daly, C. (2006). Professional teacher learning in virtual environments.

E-Learning, 3(1), 62–74.Rogers, A. (2002). Teaching adults (3rd ed). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.Sadler-Smith, E., & Smith, P.J. (2004). Strategies for accommodating individuals’ styles and

preferences in flexible learning programmes. British Journal of Educational Technology,35(4), 395–412.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2003). Knowledge building. Encyclopedia of education (2nded., pp. 1370–1373). New York: Macmillan.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2005). Does education for the knowledge age need a newscience? European Journal of School Psychology, 3(1), 21–40.

Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

392 S. Cornelius et al.

Scottish Executive (SE). (2006). Professional standards for lecturers in Scotland’s colleges.Retrieved September 26, 2007, from http://www.scotland.gov.uk/publications/2006/06/13164029/0

Sims, R. (2008). Rethinking (e)learning: A manifesto for connected generations. DistanceEducation, 29(2), 153–164.

Sims, R., & Stork, E. (2007). Design for contextual learning: Web-based environments thatengage diverse learners. In J. Richardson & A. Ellis (Eds.), Proceedings of AusWeb07.Lismore, NSW: Southern Cross University. Retrieved November 10, 2008, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/aw07/papers/refereed/sims/

Thorpe, M., Kubiak, C., & Thorpe, C. (2003). Designing for reuse and versioning. In A.Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources: A sustainable approach to e-learning. London:Kogan Page.

Vygotsky, L.L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weatherley, C., Bonney, B., Kerr, J., & Morrison, J. (2003). Transforming teaching andlearning: Developing ‘critical skills’ for living and working in the 21st Century. Stafford, UK:Network Educational Press.

Weller, M., Pegler, C.A., & Mason, R. (2003). Putting the pieces together: What working withlearning objects means to the educator. Paper presented at the eLearn InternationalConference, Edinburgh.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W.M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: Aguide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Wideman, H., Owston, R., & Sinitskaya, N. (2007). Transforming teacher practice throughblended professional development: Lessons learned from three initiatives. In C. Crawford,et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher EducationInternational Conference 2007 (pp. 2148–2154). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

Interactive Learning Environments 393