Flexible learning dimensions in higher education: aligning students’ and educators’ perspectives for more inclusive practices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Driven by the rise of recent technologies and long-standing interest in accommodating diverse student needs, the demand for flexibility in higher education has intensified. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has intensified studies investigating online learning effects, reflecting shifting preferences and demands in education. Although prior research recognizes diverse flexibility practices, a narrow focus on instructional delivery limits its potential. Bridging this gap requires re-envisioning flexible learning by involving students, educators, and institutions in the transformation process. Therefore, this study aims to investigate and compare students’ and educators’ perspectives and experiences of five dimensions of flexibility (deadlines, modality, assessment type, grading and weighting, and course correspondence). The study involves a quantitative and qualitative survey, composed of Likert scale and open-ended questions. The survey respondents were students ( N = 315) and educators ( N = 100) at Western University across different years and programs. The quantitative component reveals a general alignment between student and educator preferences across flexibility dimensions. Noteworthy preferences include collaborative deadline setting, non-timed and take-home assessments, and more frequent, lower-weighted tasks. Students’ increased preference for hybrid learning, despite a general preference for in-person formats, underscores the value placed on flexibility and adaptability. Qualitative findings illuminate the broader implications of flexibility that can be organized into the following four themes: (1) flexibility humanizes teaching and learning, (2) flexibility recognizes diverse student populations, (3) flexibility provides broad accommodation and increases accessibility, and (4) flexibility can offer immediate relief but poses long-term consequences. In conclusion, this study emphasizes the multifaceted nature of flexibility in higher education, offering a nuanced understanding of the impact of flexibility on students, educators, and institutions, encouraging further exploration and evidence-based policy decisions. Beyond academia, the research suggests potential reshaping of the higher education landscape, positioning flexibility as a fundamental element to foster a more inclusive, supportive, and effective learning environment for both students and educators.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it