This document provides an overview of a report on a project undertaken by the Institutes of Technology in Ireland to enhance flexibility in higher education. It contains four main sections. Section 1 introduces the project background and contextualizes it within national and European policy. Section 2 contains case studies that are student-oriented. Section 3 has studies that are systems-oriented. The final section draws conclusions and lessons learned. The overall project aimed to address the skills needs of adult learners through a multifaceted approach to building capacity for flexible learning across the institutes of technology sector in Ireland.

1. Enhancing Flexibility
in Higher Education
A Report on the Supported Flexible Learning
Project undertaken by the Institutes of
Technology in Ireland

3. Enhancing Flexibility
in Higher Education
A Report on the Supported Flexible Learning
Project undertaken by the Institutes of Technology
in Ireland
Edited by
Richard Thorn, Mark Glynn & Caitríona Campbell
For an electronic copy of this publication, visit:
www.ioti.ie/about-us/flexible-learning-project
Published on behalf of the SIF 2 Sectoral Project Supported Flexible Learning

4. First Published 2012 by Institutes of Technology Ireland.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form by any electronic,
mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

5. Preface 1
Section 1: Introduction and Contextualisation
Introduction: Project Background and Policy Context
Dr Kevin C. O’Rourke, Dublin Institute of Technology 5
System Performance – from Fixed to Flexible Learning
Dr Richard Thorn, Institutes of Technology Ireland 7
Advancing Flexible Learning through the Strategic Innovation Fund
Abigail Chantler and Muiris O’Connor, Higher Education Authority 13
Flexible Learning Capacity Building – a Perspective from the
Central Project Team
Dr Mark Glynn and Dr Richard Thorn, Institutes of Technology Ireland 19
Section 2: Student-oriented Case Studies
Converting a Course for Online Delivery
Dr Marc Cashin, Luke Fannon, Eoin Langan and Seamus Ryan, Athlone Institute of Technology 21
The Impact on Student Learning of Investment in Technical Strategy –
Embedding Blogs and Wikis into Learning
Anna O’Donovan, Dr Siobhán O’Sullivan and Irene Sheridan, Cork Institute of Technology 28
Flexible Learning: Virtual Classrooms at IT Carlow
Brian McQuaid and Dr John Ó Néill, Institute of Technology Carlow 35
Building Capacity in Online Learning through Certified Training
Brian Mulligan, Institute of Technology Sligo 40
The Use of Minor and Special Purpose Awards to Facilitate Flexible
Programme Delivery
Brid McElligott, Institute of Technology Tralee 44
The Impact in Limerick Institute of Technology of the SIF2
Sectoral Project ‘Supported Flexible Learning’
Colin McLean, Limerick Institute of Technology 50
Making our Systems and Niche Programmes More Flexible
through Technology
Michael Carey, Denis McFadden and Liam McIntyre, Letterkenny Institute of Technology 54
Contents

6. Section 3: Systems-oriented Case Studies
Lessons from Flexible Learning across Multiple Campuses
Dr Kevin C. O’Rourke, Dublin Institute of Technology 59
Flexible Learning: a Case Study of Transformational Change
Dr John Dallat and Dr Brendan Ryder, Dundalk Institute of Technology 65
Staff Attitudes to Pedagogical Change in Flexible Learning,
with a Special Emphasis on the Use of Moodle
Des Foley, Galway-Mayo Institute of Technology 79
Sustainability through Integration – Sustaining the Flexible Learning
Approach in IADT
Dr Marion Palmer, Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design Technology 86
Academic and Support System Changes – Providing Equitable
Services to Full- and Part-time Learners
Dr Larry McNutt and Daniel McSweeney, Institute of Technology Blanchardstown 90
Student Services, a Key Aspect of the Provision of Flexible Learning
in Higher Education Institutions
Terry Maguire and Josephine O’Donovan, Institute of Technology Tallaght 97
Building Capacity through Infrastructural Change
Dr John Wall, Waterford Institute of Technology 102
New Approaches to Lifelong Learning – www.BlueBrick.ie
Dr Mark Glynn and Dr Richard Thorn, Institutes of Technology Ireland 106
Section 4: Conclusions and Lessons Learned
Part-time and Flexible Learning Provision – a Multifaceted Challenge
Dr Richard Thorn, Institutes of Technology Ireland 111
Authors’ Biographies 114

7. 1
The recent surge in unemployment and changing patterns
of work bring new urgency and a much greater emphasis on
lifelong learning and upskilling. A high proportion of the skills that
we need now in the workforce are high-order knowledge-based
skills, many of which can be acquired only in higher education
institutions. This publication illustrates the multifaceted approach
undertaken by the institutes of technology sector, under the
auspices of the flexible learning project, to address the needs
of people wishing to participate in flexible learning in higher
education in Ireland.
Individual institutions identified a range of capacity-building
activities that were integrated into their own institutional plans.
The diverse range of approaches undertaken by the institutes
outlined in this publication is representative of the extent of
the challenge facing higher education in Ireland. Furthermore
the wide variety of approaches outlined in these case studies
is testament to the fact that each institute of technology is at
its own stage of development in its lifelong learning strategy.
The publication is divided into four distinct sections. Section
1 provides an introduction to the project and contextualises
the project in terms of national and European policy. Section
2 contains case studies that are student-oriented. Section 3
contains studies that are broadly systems-oriented. The final
section, Section 4, draws conclusions from the case studies
and captures lessons learnt from the project in its entirety.
Section 1
Introduction: Project Background
and Policy Context
Kevin C. O’Rourke – DIT
During the Celtic Tiger years in Ireland, education policy emphasis
tended to focus on upskilling the existing workforce for future
jobs in the knowledge society that was expected to emerge.
However, as the world economy plummeted to recession and
the construction sector collapsed in Ireland, the scene has
changed considerably since October 2007 when the Institutes
of Technology Ireland (IOTI) and DIT submitted their proposal on
flexible learning to the Higher Education Authority. This chapter
provides a synopsis of the project background and its context
from a national perspective.
System Performance – from Fixed
to Flexible Learning
R. Thorn – IOTI
Notwithstanding the success of Irish higher education in respect
of full-time school-leavers, the institutes of technology are
currently focusing on the needs of adult and part-time learners.
A key component of the ‘Supported Flexible Learning’ project has
been the measurement of institution and system performance
over the course of the four-year project. This chapter illustrates
the agreed performance measures that would be used to
determine whether or not there has been a shift from fixed to
flexible educational delivery in the institutes of technology over
the course of the project.
Advancing Flexible Learning through
the Strategic Innovation Fund
A. Chantler, M. O’Connor – HEA
This chapter illustrates the great strides taken in advancing the
flexible learning agenda through the Higher Education Authority’s
Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) and discusses how the social
and economic challenges that Ireland now faces have increased
the importance of its core objectives: enhancing the delivery of
education at undergraduate and postgraduate levels; improving
access to, and progression through, higher education; and
building research capacity, all essential for economic recovery.
The Strategic Innovation Fund has had a significant impact on
the advancement of the flexible learning agenda which is vital
to addressing the up-skilling challenges that Ireland faces and
the IOTI’s ‘Supported Flexible Learning’ project has made an
important contribution to this.
Flexible Learning Capacity Building –
a Perspective from the Central Project
Team
M. Glynn, R. Thorn – IOTI
This chapter outlines the main activities undertaken by the
central project team in directly supporting institute activities,
including identifying educational software and roll out of training
in appropriate flexible learning software solutions and the
establishment of various networks. Other main activities and
results, reflected in publications and projects, are also described
in this chapter.
Preface

8. 2
Section 2
Converting a Course for Online Delivery
M. Cashin, L. Fannon, E. Langan, S. Ryan – AIT
This chapter explores the planning and execution of the online
delivery of a Level 8 course as an alternative to the traditional
face-to-face delivery method. The aim was to develop a best-
practice approach to online delivery, with due consideration of
the pedagogical and andragogical issues.
The Impact on Student Learning of
Investment in Technical Strategy –
Embedding Blogs and Wikis into Learning
A. O’Donovan, S. O’Sullivan, I. Sheridan – CIT
Web 2.0 tools can promote interactivity and discourse within
the class, providing both teachers and pupils with opportunities
and challenges. This chapter outlines a study that looks at how
electronic communications are transforming the way work is
done and are reshaping personal communication with students,
and how such technologies are being integrated into teaching.
This case study specifically examines the use of blogs and wikis
within a science course in CIT.
Flexible Learning: Virtual Classrooms
at IT Carlow
B. McQuaid, J. Ó Néill – ITC
The available online technologies now afford students increasing
flexibility in terms of the opportunities to pursue part-time
education. For most education institutions, launching online
learning courses and programmes represents a significant cultural
and operational challenge. This chapter presents outcomes
from the use of virtual classrooms in IT Carlow lifelong learning
programmes in the 2010/11 academic year, providing an initial
assessment of the relative quality of the learner experience inside
and outside the virtual classroom.
Building Capacity in Online Learning
through Certified Training
B. Mulligan – ITS
IT Sligo recognised the benefits of maximising the number of
academic staff competent in using learning technologies. This
chapter describes the change in approach taken by ITS with
respect to professional development of staff in the area of
e-learning. A blended learning course was created that could be
accessed in a number of modes by academic staff with different
levels of interest and experience.
The Use of Minor and Special Purpose Awards
to Facilitate Flexible Programme Delivery
B. McElligott – IT Tralee
The National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) is designed to
recognise both large and smaller packages of learning. Minor,
Special Purpose and Supplemental Awards were established to
ensure that there was more than one type of award at all levels
of the framework. This chapter profiles the developments within
the Institute of Technology Tralee over the period 2008 to 2011
in its use of Minor and Special Purpose Awards as a mechanism
for flexible programme delivery.
The Impact in Limerick Institute of
Technology of the SIF2 Sectoral Project
‘Supported Flexible Learning’
C. McLean – LIT
The flexible learning project incorporated a multifaceted approach
to addressing the skills needs of adult learners. This chapter
outlines the case study conducted by Limerick Institute of
Technology in evaluating the impact of the project within the
institute. By allocating resources to individual course teams on a
case-by-case basis, the teams had the latitude to implement a
flexible learning solution in whatever format the solution required.
This study examines the process each team went through,
highlighting the positive and negative aspects and examines the
wider benefits for the institute.
Making our Systems and Niche
Programmes More Flexible through
Technology
M. Carey, D. McFadden, L. McIntyre – LYIT
This chapter describes two separate case studies that led to
significant improvements in LYIT’s flexible learning infrastructure
and programme offerings. The first case study outlines changes
to the institute’s flexible learning infrastructure and systems.
The second case study examines a niche programme, originally
developed with a major local employer, the HDip in Financial
Services Technologies. This programme was redeveloped for
blended mode delivery and acts as an exemplar for similar
development of other programmes in the future.
Section 3
Lessons from Flexible Learning across
Multiple Campuses
Kevin C. O’Rourke – DIT
As a result of Dublin Institute of Technology being spread across
the city, policies and procedures with regards to part-time
provision have been defined at school level. This has lead to a
rich diversity of programmes but has also contributed to a lack
of cohesion in the overall approach to part-time provision. This
chapter outlines the challenges associated with delivering part-
time provision across multiple campuses.
Flexible Learning: a Case Study of
Transformational Change
J. Dallat, B. Ryder – DkIT
This case study discusses the experiences and achievements
of the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT)
in Dundalk IT while engaged in an ongoing transformation and
change-process project, the aim of which was to enable the
institute to deliver on the flexible learning agenda. In view of the
pending changes within higher education, this paper provides
‘food for thought’ on aspects of the change-management process
within an Irish context.

9. 3
Staff Attitudes to Pedagogical Change
in Flexible Learning, with a Special
Emphasis on the Use of Moodle
D. Foley – GMIT
This case study looks at the nature of change in an institute,
using the adoption of its virtual learning environment – Moodle.
The increased use of Moodle is an indicator of change and this
has implications for creating an environment for flexible learning
within an institute. The case study utilises a quantitative approach,
incorporating survey and system data to examine the way in
which Moodle has become part of everyday life in GMIT
Sustainability through Integration –
Sustaining the Flexible Learning Approach
in IADT
M. Palmer – IADT
The impact within IADT of the flexible learning project is
considered in this case study and an overview of how flexible
learning works in one school in the institute is presented. It
argues that what can be integrated into the institute’s everyday
work is what will be sustained. In particular the Special Purpose
Awards and increased attention to staff development of teaching
and learning will be seen as legacies of the flexible learning
project as they have become part of the daily world of the
institute.
Academic and Support System Changes
– Providing Equitable Services to Full-
and Part-time Learners
L. McNutt, D. McSweeney – ITB
This case study captures relevant discussions and reflections in
relation to the challenge of continuing to address the needs of
part-time adult learners in a system predominantly structured and
resourced to cater for the needs of CAO entrants. The chapter
covers two major topics: changes to student support systems and
changes to academic processes, both of which were designed
to improve our responsiveness and flexibility in addressing the
needs of current and future students.
Student Services, a Key Aspect of the
Provision of Flexible Learning in Higher
Education Institutions
T. Maguire, J. O’Donovan – ITT Dublin
This case study discusses the institute’s strategy in relation
to developing ‘flexibility’, describing the flexibility of student
services under development and in particular focusing on the
development of the web payments system and situating this in
the wider context of a holistic strategy for flexible learning for
students.
Building Capacity through Infrastructural
Change
J. Wall – WIT
This case study describes the rollout and integration of Moodle
as the platform to facilitate flexible learning approaches within
WIT; the configuration of Moodle to integrate with Banner and
the further development of Moodle functionality and integration
of other appropriate open source and Web 2.0 learning
technologies.
New Approaches to Lifelong Learning –
www.BlueBrick.ie
M. Glynn, R. Thorn – IOTI
This chapter outlines the activities undertaken by the central
project team in IOTI on the web portal www.BlueBrick.ie.
It summarises research undertaken to identify countries,
systems, experiences and lessons learned from similar shared
services internationally. It gives the background to the evolution
and technology underpinning BlueBrick.ie, what it means to
both the learner and the academic institute. Finally this chapter
details the phases, over a three-year period, of the marketing and
branding of BlueBrick.ie and the communications and promotion
campaign.
Section 4
Part-time and Flexible Learning Provision
– a Multifaceted Challenge
R. Thorn – IOTI
This chapter gathers the main findings from the various case
studies and places them in the wider context of flexible and
open and distance learning in Ireland. Amongst the clearest of
the findings was the need for a ‘whole of institution approach’ to
enhancing the capacity of a higher education institution to deliver
flexible learning.

10. 4

11. 5
The opening decade of the 21st century will provide fertile
ground for future economics students. In Europe it began with
the optimism embodied in the establishment of the single
currency and in the Lisbon Strategy, which sought to make
the European Union the world’s most competitive knowledge
economy, but the decade closed with serious questions
surrounding the viability of the euro – and even of the EU itself.
Ireland’s situation is paradigmatic in the unfolding drama. With
low unemployment rates of around 4% for most of the decade,
policy emphasis tended to focus on upskilling the existing
workforce for future jobs in the knowledge society that was
expected to emerge. However, as the world economy nosedived
and the construction sector collapsed at home, the scene has
changed considerably since October 2007 when the Institutes of
Technology and DIT submitted their proposal on flexible learning
to the Higher Education Authority.
Entitled ‘Addressing the Needs of the Knowledge Economy’, the
IOTI proposal was in line both with then-current thinking and
with the market needs highlighted in the fifth report of the Expert
Group on Future Skills Needs (Forfás, 2007). That report had
been commissioned by the government in order to ‘identify the
skills required for Ireland to become a competitive, innovation-
driven, knowledge-based, participative and inclusive economy
by 2020’. It flagged Ireland’s relatively low (7%) participation
rate in continuous learning, noting an under-supply of skills at
the higher levels and an over-supply at the opposite end, and
predicted a need for almost one million extra new workers by
2020. In response, the Institutes of Technology and DIT agreed
to work together to increase access to and participation in higher
education significantly by 2012, and thereby expand the number
of people engaged in workforce development in Ireland via a
supported flexible-learning initiative.
Recognition of the need for educational establishments to
respond to demand for ‘lifelong learning’ was, of course, not
new. The 1967 Commission on Higher Education Report had
noted the necessity of such education (interestingly, it pointed to
submissions from the established universities outlining why such
education should not form part of their remit) (Morrissey, 1990).
The subsequent establishment of a committee to investigate
the nature and needs of adult education produced a report in
1973 (the ‘Murphy Report’), which defined it as ‘the provision
and utilisation of facilities whereby those who are no longer
participants in the full-time school system may learn whatever
they need to learn at any period of their lives’ (Department of
Education, 1973). A decade later, the Commission on Adult
Education (1984) advocated that:
Third-level institutions should, having regard to regional
and national needs, and to their own special areas of
expertise, commit themselves to educational provision which
will contribute to the development of a comprehensive
national programme of Adult and Continuing Education.
We believe they have a particular contribution to make in
the following areas: provision of part-time undergraduate
programmes, extra-mural studies programmes, community
and rural development programmes, continuing professional
education, training of adult educators and research into adult
education.
Third-level institutions should be more flexible in their entry
requirements for mature students and should in general
facilitate easier access for such students to higher education.
Third-level institutions should adopt new approaches to
facilitate greater participation in part-time day and evening
courses, such as modular credit systems, accreditation
for experience and credit transfer between institutions.
(Hyland Milne, 1992)
Response to such calls, however, has been generally slow, as
recognised by subsequent reports such as the 2000 White Paper
on Adult Education (Department of Education and Science,
2000) and the OECD Report on Higher Education (OECD,
2004). In formulating its proposal for a flexible learning initiative,
the IOTI and DIT were cognisant of the national context for
lifelong learning and workforce development. The position was
consciously developed in response to established government
policy and market needs, and in line with the Institutes’ strategic
vision. In addition to the 2007 document Tomorrow’s Skills:
Towards a National Skills Strategy (which set targets for almost
half the labour force to have qualifications at NFQ Levels 6–10
by 2020), explicit mention was made of the ten-year social
partnership agreement Towards 2016, published in 2006,
which included priority actions on increasing participation in
lifelong learning, in particular among the workforce categorised
as low-skilled (Department of the Taoiseach, 2006). Reports
from the National Economic Social Forum (2006)1, the Forum
on Workplace for the Future (2005) and the Enterprise Strategy
Group (2004) were also noted. The Institutes of Technology
and DIT committed themselves to mainstreaming flexible
learning within and across the institutes as an innovative and
complementary mode of delivery, co-existing with established
programmes and delivery methods. The aim was to contribute
to an integrated national system of lifelong learning by ensuring
equity of access for learners, enabling integration and cost
efficiencies across the institutions, and by responding to the
national needs of business, industry and learners in the workforce
Introduction: Project Background
and Policy Context
Kevin C. O’Rourke, Dublin Institute of Technology
1 This report noted that just 6% of higher education participants in Ireland are mature students.

12. 6
for flexible applied education. The project was planned to take
place over four years, and the progress of each institute would
be assessed using four different categories: communication, staff
training, student numbers and improvement in internal systems.
Regular reports and updates to all interested stakeholders were to
be an integral part of the project.
Overall, a win-win situation was envisaged. For workers, the
initiative was designed to offer negotiated learning opportunities
and real choice in terms of programme content and structure,
convenient delivery methods and more meaningful assessment.
Access and equality of opportunity were noted, as well as
increased participation levels, personal and professional planning,
and the support of a community of like-minded learners across
the country. A network of collaboration and communities of
practice were planned across the Institutes of Technology sector,
enhancing capability in the design, development, delivery and
assessment of flexible learning, in addition to increased flexibility
for academic staff and expanded skillsets in innovative pedagogy.
Evolved partnership between industry and education providers
was expected to emerge, while for policy-makers there was a
promise of delivering on national policy in relation to workforce
development, increasing access and lifelong learning. Targets
and outcomes for the first five operating years were offered
by way of demonstrating that the project could provide value
for money in terms of increasing participation and increasing
pedagogical capabilities. These included total enrolments of over
100,000 learners, generating fee-income totalling €28.8m and
at least 750 academic staff trained in innovative flexible-learning
pedagogy.
But the markets did not play the way they had been expected
to, and during the life of the project the emphasis moved from
upskilling those already in the workforce to upskilling the growing
numbers of unemployed for their return to work. In 2010, the
labour force contracted to 2.14 million and unemployment
stood at 13.6%, or almost 300,000 people out of work (Behan
Condon, 2011). For their part, the participating institutions
proceeded to put in place pilots and strategies that sought
not only to achieve the original aims of the project but also to
answer the more pressing demands imposed by the prevailing
economic situation. This publication outlines the many ways
in which the project unfolded in the period 2008–2012,
demonstrating several positive outcomes and pointing towards
realistic possibilities for the future of flexible learning throughout
Ireland. The publication in November 2009 of a position paper
on open and flexible learning by the Higher Education Authority
has provided a welcome addition to the impetus that has been
started by the project (O’Connor, 2009). Moreover, the National
Strategy for Higher Education to 2030 set out very clearly its
position on a more flexible system of education:
If Ireland is to achieve its ambitions for recovery and
development within an innovation-driven economy, it is
essential to create and enhance human capital by expanding
participation in higher education. The scale of the projected
widening and growth in participation over the period of this
strategy demands that Ireland’s higher-education system
become much more flexible in provision in both time and
place, and that it facilitates transfer and progression through
all levels of the system. There remain significant challenges
in this area: successive reports have recognised the relatively
poor performance of our system in the area of lifelong
learning, while the requirement for upgrading and changing
of employee skills and competencies is becoming ever
greater. Changes to system funding and operation will be
needed in order to enable the institutions to respond to these
needs by increasing the variety and diversity of their provision
and improvements in the interface between higher education
and further education and training will be necessary to
support enhanced progression opportunities. (Hunt, 2011)
The efforts and drive of project participants documented here,
when supported by a vision for change such as that outlined
above, point to a future education system in Ireland where
flexible learning will become the norm rather than the exception.
References
Behan, J. and Condon, N. (2011) National Skills Bulletin Dublin:
Expert Group on Future Skills Needs. Dublin: Forfás. Retrieved on
2 February 2012 from www.skillsireland.ie/publications/2011/
title,8141,en.php.
Department of Education (1973) Adult Education in Ireland:
A Report of the Commission Appointed by the Minister for
Education Dublin. Dublin: Government Publications Office.
Department of Education and Science (2000) Learning for Life:
White Paper on Adult Education. Dublin: The Stationery Office.
Department of the Taoiseach (2006) Towards 2016:
Ten-Year Framework Social Partnership Agreement
2006–2015. Dublin: The Stationery Office. Retrieved
on 2 February 2012 from www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/
Publications/Publications_Archive/Publications_2006/
Towards2016PartnershipAgreement.pdf.
Forfás (2007) Tomorrow’s Skills: Towards a National Skills
Strategy. Dublin: Forfás. Retrieved on 2 February 2012
from www.skillsireland.ie/publication/egfsnSearch.jsp?ft=/
publications/2007/title,2517,en.php.
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple
Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Hunt, C. (2011) National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030.
Dublin: HEA.
Hyland, Á. and Milne, K. (1992) Irish Educational Documents,
vol. 2, pp. 515–16. Dublin: CICE.
Morrissey, M. (1990) ‘Mature students and continuing education
in Ireland’. Irish Journal of Education 24(1): 13–14.
O’Connor, M. (2009) Open and Flexible Learning. HEA Position
Paper. Dublin: HEA. Retrieved on 2 February 2012 from
www.hea.ie/odl.
OECD (2004) Review of Higher Education in Ireland:
Examiners’ Report. Retrieved on 2 February 2012 from
HEAnet: http://heatest-drupal6.heanet.ie/files/files/file/archive/
policy/2006/OECD%20Examiners%20Report%20-%20
Review%20of%20Higher%20Education%20in%20Ireland%20
(2004).pdf.

13. 7
Flexible learning in Ireland
The Lisbon Economic Summit in 2000, inter alia, emphasised
the integration of lifelong learning within the broader economic
and social policies of the EU. Follow-up activity resulted in the
establishment of five reference levels for European average
performance in education and training. A key target for lifelong
learning was that 12.5% of adults would be participating in
lifelong learning by 2010. This reference level is defined as the
percentage of the working-age population who participated in
education and training in the four weeks prior to a Labour Force
Survey conducted by EUROSTAT (EU, 2008). The report notes
that in Ireland 7.5% of the working-age population (25–64 years
of age) participated in education and training in the four weeks
prior to the survey in 2006, compared to an EU average of 9.6%.
The leading countries, Sweden and Finland, had participation
rates of 32.1% and 23.1% respectively.
The Institutes of Technology (IoTs) were established in the early
1970s with a specific mission to provide vocational, third-level
education while also meeting the developmental needs of
the regions in which they were located. From the beginning,
therefore, they had a specific remit to link higher education
with society in practical and meaningful ways. Between the
early 1970s and the present, they were a key part of Ireland’s
attempts to transform itself from an agricultural economy into a
manufacturing economy, and currently into a knowledge- and
innovation-led society. A key component of that transformation
was the growth and development of higher education. From
a low of 10% of school-leavers participating in full-time higher
education in the early 1970s, Ireland now has one of the highest
participation rates in the world: almost 60% of the school-leaving
cohort progress to higher education (O’Connell et al., 2006). At
present about half of the undergraduate students registered in
higher education institutions in Ireland are registered in Institutes
of Technology.
Notwithstanding the success of Irish higher education in respect
of full-time school-leavers, the IoTs – through a variety of
initiatives, including the ‘Supported Flexible Learning’ project – are
currently focusing on the needs of adult and part-time learners.
This emphasis has arisen as a result of a reappraisal of mission
and strategy in the light of Ireland’s poor performance in part-
time education, as noted above, by attempting to increase the
provision of flexible learning opportunities in line with the IoTs’
long-standing mission to provide vocational higher education.
A key component of the ‘Supported Flexible Learning’ project has
been the measurement of institution and system performance
over the course of the four-year project. At an early stage in the
project, the steering committee agreed performance measures
that would be used to determine whether or not there had been
a shift from fixed to flexible educational delivery in the IoTs over
the course of the project.
Performance-measurement system design
considerations
Neely et al. (1995) define a performance-measurement system
as ‘the set of metrics used to quantify both the efficiency and
effectiveness of actions’. Clearly the success or otherwise of a
project designed to increase the capacity of one half of a higher-
education system to deliver more flexible learning can only be
determined on the basis of some form of measurement system.
Perhaps the best-known performance-measurement framework
is that of Kaplan and Norton (1992). They argue that a
measurement system should provide:
a) a financial perspective that considers shareholder
concerns and value,
b) an internal business perspective that considers what you
want to be good at,
c) a customer perspective that considers how you are
viewed, and
d) an innovation and learning perspective that considers
how you create value.
Neely et al. (1995) suggest that a flaw in Kaplan and Norton’s
model is that there is no competitor perspective. Neely et al.
review other authors who propose that, rather than suggesting
frameworks for the design of performance-measurement
systems, it may be more useful to consider appropriate criteria.
They cite, for example, Globerson (1985) who argued that:
a) performance criteria should be drawn from a company’s
objectives,
b) performance criteria must make possible the comparison
of organisations that are in the same business,
c) the purpose of each performance criterion must be clear,
d) data-collection and methods of calculation must be
clearly defined,
e) ratio-based performance criteria are preferred to
absolute-number criteria,
f) performance criteria should be under the control of the
unit being evaluated,
g) performance criteria should be selected through
discussions with the people involved, and
h) objective performance criteria are preferable to subjective
ones.
Mills et al. (2000) propose a different approach to the design
of performance-measurement systems. They argue that both
the balanced scorecard approach of authors such as Kaplan and
Norton and the criteria approach of authors such as Globerson
pay insufficient attention to how the frameworks and criteria
can be ‘populated’. They argue that a process-based approach
System Performance – from Fixed
to Flexible Learning
Dr Richard Thorn, Institutes of Technology Ireland

14. 8
reduces ‘gaming’1, because the people affected are directly
involved in its design, and it also allows the system to be
reconfigured more easily as production systems change.
Pollitt et al. (2007) move consideration of the design of
performance-measurement systems firmly into the public sector
in their consideration of the English and Dutch healthcare
systems since 1980. On the basis of their findings, Pollitt et al.
argue that:
a) the ‘system’ was never ‘designed’ and thus cannot be
viewed as an integrated whole,
b) performance measures seldom have an agreed primary
objective, so interpretation will invariably be contested,
c) the performance-measurement ‘system’ chosen will not
be stable over time,
d) any measure can be manipulated or, in the authors’
words, ‘gamed’, and
e) indicator measures cannot be designed in a self-
contained technical manner.
Pollitt et al. consider that the implications for the design of a
system of measurement include:
a) the necessity of maintaining a strong temporal
perspective (cycles, punctuations, paths etc.) and
understanding the time necessary for developing the
measures (e.g. setting up databases and collection
systems),
b) what the scale of impact of particular events is within the
system and whether or not such events are random or
predictable,
c) the need to identify the key organisational players within
the system and their motivations, and
d) the mixture and weighting of measures at any point in
and over time.
In addition to the specific considerations attached to system-
measurement design as described above, there is the more
general research-design consideration that measurements chosen
must be valid, reliable and generalisable – by this, the authors
mean that the measures chosen must measure what they are
supposed to, that if the measures are repeated they will give the
same results, and that if they are applied to a different part of the
same system they will work just as well.
The measures and measurement system
chosen
The previous section discussed the considerations surrounding
framework-based systems, criteria-based systems, process-
designed systems and public-sector systems, as well as
the general research requirement for validity, reliability and
generalisability. With these considerations in mind, the checklist
in Table 1 was developed to ensure that the measures and
performance-measurement system chosen were fit for the
purpose of measuring a shift in the higher-education system
from fixed to flexible learning.
The flexible learning project was managed by a centrally
located project team and governed by a steering committee
representative of every institute involved and external members
including the funding authority and a national skills planning
body. The process for choosing the measures involved the
development of an initial set of measures by the central team,
consideration by the steering committee, amendment by the
project team and final approval. Criterion 1 in Table 1 had thus
been satisfied.
The measures chosen were:
1. the number of ‘part-time’ and ‘occasional’ higher
education students,
2. the number of Special Purpose and Minor Awards
registered for the system,
3. the number of educational offerings on
www.BlueBrick.ie, and
4. the number of staff trained in flexible delivery methods.
Table 2 describes in more detail the characteristics of each of
these measures, and identifies in the case of each measure the
specific criteria satisfied (with the exception of Criterion 1, which
had already been satisfied, as noted above).
The authors argue that the individual measures chosen do not
have validity on their own terms, but through the interaction
between them. For example, a measure of the number of staff
trained in flexible delivery methods would not mean anything
on its own, but if this was accompanied by an increase in
the number of Special Purpose Awards approved, then it is
reasonable to assume that the effect of the training was to
increase the flexibility of provision.
Results and discussion
The number of part-time higher education
students expressed as a percentage change
Table 3 shows the number of part-time (and full-time) students
in the Institutes of Technology over the four-year period
2005/2006 to 2010/2011, expressed as a percentage change.
This four-year period was chosen to provide a benchmark for
future change-measurement. The figures show a slight increase
in the proportion of the student population that is made up of
part-time students over the period. It should be noted that in
2008/2009 the Higher Education Authority introduced two new
categories of student: ‘Distance’ and ‘e-Learning’; clearly people
studying in this manner are studying flexibly. However, the HEA
categories do not make a distinction between part-time and
full-time registrations within these modes of study. The authors
felt that since the HEA definition of ‘part-time’ is clear and well
understood, and since consideration is being given to other
forms of student-registration data capture (perhaps, for example,
through the use of a credit-studied system), it was best to use
part-time figures in the first instance. However, since students
in these other categories are clearly studying flexibly, as noted
above, the data are reported separately in Table 4.
1 ‘Gaming’ may be defined as manipulating results to improve the ranking of an institution or institutions in respect of a particular
measure.

15. 9
The data show that, since the introduction of these categories,
the numbers have grown dramatically: from 478 to 595 for
the ‘e-learning’ category, and 726 to 1,086 for the ‘Distance’
category. If these categories were included with part-time
numbers as a general indication of ‘flexible’ learning, then
significant growth in the system would be recorded.
This performance measure shows a stable system in respect of
numbers of part-time students within the IoTs over the timeframe
chosen. However, when ‘Distance’ and e-Learning’ students are
considered two points emerge. First, the numbers of students
being reported for these two categories shows a year-on-year
increase. Second, the number of institutes reporting in these
categories has also increased since their introduction.
The number of Special Purpose and Minor
Awards registered for the system
The National Framework of Qualifications in Ireland has a number
of embedded awards that are designed to help learners who
wish to gain accreditation for portions of study that either do
not constitute a full award (Minor) or have a particular focus in
their own right (Special Purpose Awards). These award types
were designed specifically with the needs of learners, rather than
providers, in mind. Their use, therefore, by providers represents
market awareness and a focus on the needs of learners. Figures
1a and 1b show the number of Special Purpose and Minor
Awards registered with HETAC (Higher Education Training and
Awards Council). It should be noted that one large Institute of
Technology (Dublin Institute of Technology) makes awards in its
own right and does not return information to HETAC. Although
the Irish framework of qualifications was launched in 2003, it
was not until 2007 that policy and criteria for the development
of Special Purpose and Minor Awards became available to the
IoTs as a result of the approval processes delegated from HETAC.
The data shown therefore show the growth of the use of these
awards from the beginning of their availability.
In summary, it is clear that there has been rapid growth in
the system in the use of these awards, notwithstanding the
stabilisation in Minor Awards for 2011. This suggests strongly that
there is greater awareness now of the potential of these awards
to meet the needs of learners, as originally envisaged when these
awards were embedded in the framework as described above.
The number of educational offerings on
www.BlueBrick.ie
A key component of the project was the development of a
portal – www.BlueBrick.ie – that was designed to improve
the amount of information available to prospective learners
wishing to study on a part-time or flexible basis. The presence of
BlueBrick.ie offers IoTs the opportunity to increase the ‘reach’ of
their marketing efforts. Increases in the number of educational
offerings on BlueBrick.ie therefore imply a greater willingness
to respond to the market by meeting the needs of learners,
and thus demonstrate increased flexibility. When the portal was
launched in September 2009 there were 260 offerings on the
system. At the time of writing this paper (October 2011), there
are 425 courses on BlueBrick.ie.
In summary, it is clear that the IoTs are responding to the
marketing opportunities provided by BlueBrick.ie, and thereby
demonstrating an increased responsiveness to the needs of
learners.
Number of staff trained in flexible delivery
methods in the institutions in the system
This is a self-reported measure, designed to capture the extent to
which attention within each institution in the system is being paid
to developing capacity to deliver flexibly. Data on this measure
have only been collected for 2009 and, according to returns
submitted by each institute, 1,200 person-days of training have
been taken up in this activity.
In summary, it is too early to determine whether or not this measure
will prove a useful indicator of greater flexibility within the system.
The results described above suggest some movement on the
part of the system towards greater flexibility as far as meeting
individual learners’ needs is concerned. Pollitt and Bouckaert
(2000) offer a different prism through which the results of a
measurement system such as that described here can be viewed.
These authors consider results in the context of system change
and at four levels.
First, ‘operational results’ refer to discrete and quantifiable results.
For example, the members of academic staff associated with a
programme with high failure rates implement a programme to
counteract this and student pass rates increase by 50%. On this
basis, the use of Special Purpose and Minor Awards represents a
desirable development in the system.
Second, the results could show improved ‘processes’ of
management or decision-making. For example, the establishment
of ‘one-stop shops’ shows how a system can improve the
efficiency of information flow without doing anything different.
The assumption is that improvements like this will lead to overall
system improvements. In this instance, the establishment of
BlueBrick.ie represents an improved process: it has improved
the efficiency of information transfer.
Third, the results may indicate a broad change in the overall
capacity of the system. For example, opening up senior civil
servant appointments to a competitive process will probably
lead to better candidates being appointed and thus to long-term
improvements in the effectiveness of the system. The results
from the performance-measurement system in this project do
not yet clearly indicate a broad change in the overall capacity of
the system.
Fourth, the results might indicate whether or not the system
has moved towards some ideal or desired state. For example,
deregulating the electricity-supply business may result in a more
market-driven approach to energy supply, which might have been
the desired political endpoint of the change process. Interestingly,
in this instance, the use of Special Purpose and Minor Awards
and the increasing use of BlueBrick.ie suggest that the member-
institutions are becoming more market-aware in terms of meeting
the needs of learners. This desired endpoint has long been a
feature of analyses of the Irish higher-education system.
Conclusions and future considerations
The performance-measurement system as described in this
paper arises from a major project on flexible learning being
undertaken by the Institutes of Technology in Ireland. The results
from the measurement system to date suggest that there is
some movement on the part of the constituent institutions from
a system that is characterised by its fixed nature to one that is
more flexible. Monitoring of the system over time will determine
more clearly whether this change is taking place.

16. 10
The authors suggest that future use of the system will have to take
into account a number of issues including but not restricted to:
n changes in the type of student-registration data collected
by the higher education authority;
n ‘granularisation’ of the system to allow individual
institutions to benchmark performance against the
system as a whole. Such developments will have to take
into account differences in the size of institutions through
the use of ratios. For example, the ratio of students to
courses on BlueBrick.ie will overcome scale differences
between institutions;
n the currently incomplete coverage of the higher
education system in terms of the use of Special Purpose
and Minor Awards; and
n measures to measure more effectively internal inputs
(within institutions) that help moves towards more
flexible delivery.
References
EU (2008) Joint Employment Report 2007/2008. Brussels.
Globerson, S. (1985) ‘Issues in developing a performance-criteria
system for an organisation’, International Journal of Production
Research 23(4): 639–646. In: Neely, Gregory and Platts (1995):
80–116.
HETAC (Higher Education and Training Awards Council, Ireland)
(2008) Policy and Draft Guidelines on Minor, Special Purpose
and Supplemental Awards. Dublin: HETAC.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992) ‘The balanced scorecard
– measures that drive performance’, Harvard Business Review
January–February: 71–79. In: Neely, Gregory and Platts (1995):
80–116.
Mills, J., Platts, K., Richards, H., Gregory, M., Bourne, M. and
Kennerley, M. (2000) ‘Performance-measurement system design:
developing and testing a process-based approach’, International
Journal of Operations and Production Management 20(10):
1119–1145.
Neely, A., Gregory, M. and Platts, K. (1995) ‘Performance-
measurement system design. A literature review and research
agenda’, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management 14(4): 80–116.
NQAI (National Qualifications Authority of Ireland) (2003)
Policies and Criteria for the Establishment of the National
Framework of Qualifications. Dublin: NQAI.
O’Connell, J., Clancy, D. and McCoy, S. (2006) Who Went to
College in 2004? A National Survey of New Entrants to Higher
Education. Dublin: Higher Education Authority.
Pollitt, C. and Bouckaert, G. (2000) Public Management Reform.
A Comparative Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pollitt, C., Harrison, S., Bal, R., Dowswell, G. and Jerak, S. (2007)
‘Conceptualising the development of performance-measurement
systems’, paper submitted to EGPA Study Group on Performance
and Quality.
Thorn, R., McLoughin, R. and Glynn, R. (2010) ‘The learner, the
market, the academy – new insights, new approaches’, paper
presented to the European Association of Institutional Research
Conference ‘Linking Society and Universities: New Missions for
Universities’ in Valencia, Spain, 1–4 September 2010.
Table 1 Checklist criteria for performance-measurement system design – fixed to flexible learning
Criterion
number
Criterion
1 Have the institutions in the system participated in the process of choosing the measures?
2 Does the system chosen provide a balance of information to the key stakeholders, namely learner, funder
and institution?
3 Do the measures chosen relate to the specific objective of increasing the amount of flexible learning?
4 Are the measures chosen objective and quantitative in nature, and are they clearly defined?
5 Do the measures chosen meet the necessary empirical research characteristics of validity, reliability
and generalisability?
6 Are the measures chosen under the control of the institutions that comprise the system?

17. 11
Table 2 Measures chosen, their characteristics/features and criteria satisfied
Measure Characteristics/features Criteria
satisfied
Number of part-time
higher education
students expressed
as a percentage
change
There is no agreed definition of a ‘flexible’ student but the Higher Education
Authority (HEA) gathers statistics on a biannual basis from higher education
institutions including ‘part-time’ students; these are students (other than full-time
students) attending intramural courses extending over at least a full academic
year and leading to a university-level award. There is also a category of ‘occasional’
students which includes individuals taking modules for their own interests, students
attending access courses that teach study skills, and students taking qualifying
courses for admission to postgraduate study. Within the IoTs, occasional HE awards
include Minor, Supplemental and Special Purpose Awards, and professional training
qualifications; these are taken on a part-time basis.
Clearly students who fall into these categories are studying on a ‘flexible’ basis in
that they are picking and choosing study options to suit themselves. The rationale
for selecting this measure is that if these numbers grow then the system is
experiencing an increase in flexible learning activity.
The central project team takes these data direct from the HEA’s database.
2
(collectively
with the other
measures),
3, 4, 5, 6
Number of Special
Purpose and Minor
Awards registered
for the system
Special Purpose and Minor Awards are awards placed in the Irish framework of
qualifications. Special Purpose Awards are defined as meeting relatively narrow,
legislative, regulatory, economic, social or personal learning requirements (HETAC,
2008). They are specifically to cater for people who wish to set about gaining
knowledge, skills or competence in a flexible, cumulative way. Minor awards are
defined as multipurpose awards that are part of a major award (e.g. Honours
Degree) and have relevance in their own right (HETAC, 2008). In respect of
minor awards NQAI (2003) notes ‘Minor award-types may contribute towards
the accumulation of credit for major award-types.’
The institutes validate their own Special Purpose and Minor Awards under
delegated authority, but are obliged to return data on the awards generated to
the Higher Education and Training Awards Council. Because of the nature of the
purpose for which these awards are generated (i.e. to meet learner requirements
for progression and specific educational developments), it is argued that an
increasing provision of these awards is an indication that the internal course-
development and academic-approval systems are increasingly designing more
flexible course offerings. The criterion of validity, reliability and generalisability is valid
for the Institutes of Technology, but generalisability may not apply for the universities
if the project is extended to them, since they do not tend to use Special Purpose
and Minor Awards.
The central team gather the data from HETAC directly.
2
(collectively
with the other
measures),
3, 4, 6
Number of
educational
offerings on
www.BlueBrick.ie
The portal developed by the project has been specifically developed to meet
the needs of the learner. The institutes have direct control of the placement and
removal of module information on BlueBrick. Increases or decreases in the number
of courses on BlueBrick.ie are taken as a direct measure of market responsiveness,
given the purpose of BlueBrick. Data on the number of educational offerings can be
taken directly from the website.
2
(collectively
with the other
measures),
3, 4, 5, 6
Number of staff
trained in flexible
delivery methods
in the institutions
in the system
This is a self-reported measure that is submitted as part of each institute’s annual
operational plan review process. An increase in the number of staff trained in
flexible delivery is taken to indicate an increase in interest in the development of
flexibly delivered programmes, which can, in turn, be measured by the number
of Special Purpose and Minor Awards approved.
3, 6

18. 12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
20112010200920082007
No.ofawards
Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 Level 9
Figure 1a Cumulative Special Purpose Awards in
the system (Data provided by Higher Education
and Training Awards Council)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
20112010200920082007
No.ofawards
Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 Level 9
Figure 1b Cumulative Minor Awards in the
system (Data provided by Higher Education
and Training Awards Council)
Table 3 The number of part-time higher education students expressed as a percentage change
between 2005/2006 and 2010/2011 (data from Higher Education Authority database)
2010/2011 2009/2010 2008/2009 2007/2008 2006/2007 2005/2006 % change
Full-
time
Part-
time
Full-
time
Part-
time
Full-
time
Part-
time
Full-
time
Part-
time
Full-
time
Part-
time
Full-
time
Part-
time
Full-
time
Part-
time
62,885 15,495 59,832 15,445 54,464 15,025 51,572 15,909 52,842 14,544 52,229 15,200
80% 20% 79% 21% 78% 22% 76% 24% 78% 22% 77% 23% 20 2
Table 4 The number of ‘Distance’ and ‘e-Learning’ students between 2008/2009
and 2010/2011 (data from Higher Education Authority database)
e-Learning
2010/2011 2009/2010 2008/2009
595 539 478
Distance
2010/2011 2009/2010 2008/2009
1,086 923 726

19. 13
Introduction
In educational research the term ‘flexible learning’ is used
interchangeably with ‘open learning’, ‘distance learning’, and
‘lifelong learning’, as well as serving as an umbrella term for a
plethora of modes of delivery variously referred to as e-learning,
blended learning, personalised learning, and web-based learning.
These terms designate ‘approaches that focus on opening
access to education and training provision, freeing learners from
the constraints of time and place and offering flexible learning
opportunities to individuals and groups of learners’ (UNESCO,
2002). Flexible learning facilitates the lifelong learning of
adults through modes of delivery that enable the student to
accommodate other commitments.
As Knapper and Cropley note, the idea of lifelong learning is
‘by no means new’ since ‘it is found in ancient writings and was
emphasised in the works of […] educational theorists such as
Comenius and Matthew Arnold’ (Knapper Cropley, 2000).
In modern times, the important role that higher education
institutions have played in the provision of part-time learning
opportunities for adults stretches back to the early nineteenth
century when, in London in 1823, Dr. George Birkbeck founded
the first Mechanics’ Institution ‘to provide [education] for
persons who are engaged in earning their livelihood during the
daytime’.1 However, it was not until 100 years later when, in
1920, Birkbeck’s Institution became a School of the University
of London dedicated to the teaching of evening and part-
time students, that the concept of lifelong learning was clearly
articulated. By this time correspondence courses had proliferated
and, since the late nineteenth century, had served as the primary
means by which adults acquired education (UNESCO, 2002). In
1919, a seminal report by the British Ministry of Reconstruction’s
Adult Education Committee concluded that ‘adult education
must not be regarded as a luxury for a few exceptional persons
here and there, nor as a thing which concerns only a short span
of early manhood’, but rather that it is ‘a permanent national
necessity, an inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore
should be both universal and lifelong’ (Ministry of Reconstruction,
1919). The further development of the concept through Eduard
Lindeman’s classic text, The Meaning of Adult Education (1926)
and that of his contemporary, Basil Yeaxlee, Lifelong Education
(1929), led to the expansion of provision of adult education
across the developed world (UNESCO, 2002; Lindeman, 1989;
Yeaxlee, 1929).
However, it was not until the 1970s that higher education
institutions began to play a major role in the delivery of part-time
and flexible course provision, and that the concept of lifelong
learning became common currency internationally. As the
emergence of the ‘knowledge economy’ heightened expectations
that higher education institutions would engage with socio-
economic challenges, lifelong learning assumed new importance
as an educational policy, championed by UNESCO in its Learning
To Be report of 1972 and enacted through the foundation of the
Open University in the preceding year (Faure, 1972). Gestated
throughout the 1960s by the BBC and the British Ministry of
Education as a ‘University of the Air’,2 the Open University marked
the start of a new era in open and distance learning in which a
range of technologies – terrestrial, satellite, and cable television
and radio – were utilised ‘to deliver live or recorded lectures to
both individual home-based learners and groups of learners in
remote classrooms’ with ‘limited audio or video-conferencing
links back to the lecturer or a moderator at a central point’. It
also ‘provided the model for the integrated multimedia systems
approach to the delivery of higher education by a single mode
university […] that has been emulated in more than a score of
countries’ (UNESCO, 2002).
By the 1990s the mode of delivery was transformed once again
by the advent of the internet, which opened up possibilities
for open and distance learning previously unimagined. These
possibilities were highlighted in Jacques Delors’ landmark
report to UNESCO, Learning: the Treasure Within, of 1996
(Delors, 1996) – the year designated ‘European Year of Lifelong
Learning’.3 Since the mid-1990s the introduction of Web 2.0
technologies has further revolutionised access to learning, both
on a full-time and part-time basis, the distinction between
which is increasingly blurred as e-learning and blended learning
facilitate the delivery of programmes at students’ own pace. The
use of interactive social media, as well as of podcasting and
video-casting, creates a distance-learning experience that closely
simulates on-campus provision (HEA, 2009b).
Within the Irish context a keen appreciation of the importance
of lifelong learning in the context of the ‘knowledge society’ has
been articulated in a wide range of reports since the 1990s
(CORI, 1999; Department of Education and Science, 2000;
Information Society Ireland, 1999). In recent decades Ireland
has moved rapidly up the ranks of OECD countries in terms of
the higher educational attainment levels of the adult population.
Moreover with ‘a comprehensive architecture for learning
Advancing Flexible Learning through
the Strategic Innovation Fund
Abigail Chantler and Muiris O’Connor, Higher Education Authority
1 The History of Birkbeck’, www.bbk.ac.uk/about-us/history.
2 ‘History of the OU’, www8.open.ac.uk/about/main/the-ou-explained/history-the-ou.
3 http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/education_training_youth/lifelong_learning/c11024_en.htm.

20. 14
in place through the National Framework of Qualifications
(NFQ)’, Ireland is also advanced in the implementation of the
European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)
that is a key component of the Bologna Process (HEA, 2009b).
Yet notwithstanding these achievements, historically there has
been very limited provision of part-time and flexible learning
opportunities at undergraduate level, restricting access to
higher education for working adults and for adults with caring
responsibilities, as well as for school-leavers who want or need
to combine study with paid employment (HEA, 2008). Thus
while the institutes of technology in particular have endeavoured
to cater for the learning needs of adults through the delivery of
evening courses – and DCU’s Oscail has, since 1982, offered
programmes via distance learning – overall the Irish higher
education system has been ill-equipped to address the evolving
educational needs of the workforce.
However, in recent years Ireland has taken great strides
in advancing the flexible learning agenda. The National
Development Plan 2007–2013 called for ‘a greater flexibility of
course offerings to meet diverse student population needs in a
lifelong learning context’ (Irish Government, 2007) – an ambition
that has been advanced through the Higher Education Authority’s
Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF).4 This is illustrated by the progress
made through the IOTI’s ‘Supported Flexible Learning’ project in
this area of crucial importance to economic renewal.
The Strategic Innovation Fund
The Strategic Innovation Fund was first announced in April
2005 in response to the OECD’s Review of Higher Education in
Ireland (2004), which called for a ‘quantum leap’ in investment
in higher education and recommended that there should be ‘a
Strategic Investment Fund for National Priorities along the lines
of the PRTLI [Programme for Research in Third-Level Institutions]’
(OECD, 2004). The implementation of this recommendation
through the creation of the SIF provided the Government with a
mechanism for the support of innovation and strategic change
across the higher education sector. As a multi-annual fund of
€510 million to be allocated on a competitive basis throughout
the course of the National Development Plan (NDP), (2007–
2013), the SIF was conceived as a means by which institutions
could develop their capabilities in a range of areas of critical
importance to their core missions (Irish Government, 2007).
Specifically the programme had the following main objectives:
n to enhance the delivery of education and research;
n to prepare for the expansion and development of
postgraduate education;
n to support innovation and quality improvement in
teaching and learning; and
n to support access, retention and progression.
The broad range of objectives of the fund has to be understood
within the context of the stage of development of the Irish higher
education system in 2006 – the year in which the programme
commenced. The SIF was designed to increase institutions’
capacity and their responsiveness to the needs of the wider
economy and society, and to enable them to rise collectively
to the challenges posed by an increasingly competitive global
market-place for higher education. The SIF was also devised
as a source of targeted investment in teaching and learning,
addressing a perceived imbalance in this area vis-à-vis research
investment. Indeed this was the first significant competitive
funding available to the institutes of technology to support
innovation in teaching and learning and the promotion of equity
of access to higher education.5
One of the most distinctive features of the SIF is the emphasis
on inter-institutional collaboration and on the alignment of
institutional strategies with national priorities. Building on a
trend first supported by the PRTLI, the SIF has contributed to a
broadening and deepening of collaboration within the higher
education sector. In terms of programme outcomes, projects
funded through the SIF have contributed to advances in Irish
higher education across a wide range of areas. Flexible course
provision, the recognition of work-based learning and prior
learning, the enhancement of engagement with enterprise and
the development of regionally coherent approaches to improve
access to higher education are among the many achievements of
SIF projects. The development and expansion of graduate schools
has been significantly advanced through the SIF and the fund has
also made an important contribution to re-structuring and change
management within and between higher education institutions
in recent years. The SIF has facilitated the consolidation of
partnerships at regional level and has led to the emergence of a
number of developments which enhance the collective identity
and quality of the system as a whole.6
Given the innovative nature of the SIF as a funding mechanism
and the clear strategic advantages that have accrued to the sector
as a result of SIF investment, it is unfortunate that, since late
2008, fiscal constraints have precipitated significant reductions
in the allocation of SIF funds.7 However, despite the adverse
4 Strategic Innovation Fund (SIF) www.hea.ie/en/sif.
5 Prior to the launch of the SIF, the HEA’s Targeted Initiatives and Strategic Initiatives had, since 2000, provided the universities with
a decade of modest but very effective investment in centres of excellence for teaching and learning and academic professional
development, and in the promotion of equity of access to higher education. The funding for these initiatives was top-sliced from
the core budget for higher education.
6 The National Academy for Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (www.nairtl.ie), LIN’s Academic Professional Development
programmes (www.lin.ie), and the IUA’s national online repository for Irish research (www.rian.ie) provide a rich sense of the
collaborations achieved under Cycle 1 of the SIF. Similarly the Shannon Consortium (www.ul.ie/shannonconsortium) and, more
recently, the Dublin Region Higher Education Alliance (www.drhea.ie) illustrate the deepening of cooperation on a regional basis
which has emerged through the SIF.
7 Of the €510 million initially anticipated for the SIF, a total of €90.8 million was allocated to higher education institutions up to
December 2011, when all SIF funding to stand-alone SIF projects ceased. An additional €4 million has been confirmed for 2012,
which will be used to support the establishment of national platforms emergent from the SIF in areas of strategic importance. Whilst
the effect of these reductions on projects funded under SIF Cycle 2, which commenced in late 2008, has been severe, the effect on
Cycle 1 projects was mitigated by their earlier start date in 2006.

21. 15
economic circumstances in which much SIF activity has been
undertaken, institutions have demonstrated a high level of
commitment to the objectives of their SIF proposals and have
managed to leverage significant change in key areas of activity. As
the Report of the SIF Evaluation acknowledges, the achievements
of the SIF projects have been impressive and a wide range of
direct and indirect benefits to the economy having been reaped
from the programme (Davies, 2010). Underpinned by innovation
in teaching and learning, the up-skilling, flexible learning, and
access objectives of the SIF are vital to the higher education
sector’s contribution to national economic renewal.
The collaborative spirit that has been a hallmark of the SIF is key
to the emergence of the more efficient higher education sector
that the current economic exigency necessitates. In particular, SIF
collaborations provide a valuable blue-print for the development
of the regional clusters that, as envisaged in the National Strategy
for Higher Education to 2030, will be a key characteristic of
the higher education landscape in the years to come (DES,
2011; HEA, 2012). Such collaboration will also ensure that the
system-level efficiencies, the rationalisation of course provision
and the joint-development and delivery of new programmes
is optimised.8 Pooling resources, sharing ideas, establishing
networks, and preventing wasteful duplication are all critical to
ensure that Ireland’s higher education institutions thrive in the
competitive, global environment of the twenty-first century.
The independent evaluation of the SIF undertaken by Gordon
Davies was an objective and candid review of the programme
that provided the HEA with a focus for the management of
the declining resources available. Davies’ Report of the SIF
Evaluation acknowledged the substantial achievements of the
programme across the range of core objectives of the Fund.
Whilst complimenting the improvement in institutions’ strategic
planning and steering that has been achieved through the SIF,
Davies suggested that the definition of SIF project objectives
and performance indicators warranted improvement, with
the clearer articulation of expected outputs and outcomes at
a project’s commencement facilitating the assessment of its
success on its conclusion. The Report of the SIF Evaluation called
for the consolidation and mainstreaming of SIF activity and for
the aggregation of projects and initiatives on a cross-thematic
basis. In accordance with these recommendations, the HEA is
targeting remaining SIF investments into teaching and learning
and external engagement in order to foster the transition towards
the formation of national platforms in these areas of strategic
importance. This targeted investment will optimise the benefit
of SIF investment for the sector.
Flexible Learning in Irish Higher Education
Advancing the flexible learning agenda in Irish higher education
is crucial to meeting the continually evolving skills needs of
the economy. Ireland’s capacity to attract high-value-added
investment and to create high-skilled jobs – both in indigenous
enterprise and via foreign direct investment – depends on the
quality, responsiveness, and adaptability of the Irish workforce,
and particularly of Irish graduates. A recent survey of foreign
direct investors in Ireland by the Economist Intelligence Unit
concluded that Ireland’s educated and skilled workforce remains
one of the country’s key competitive advantages ‘that is likely to
grow in importance as skills-driven international services comprise
a larger share of trade and investment’ (Economist Intelligence
Unit, 2012). In order to provide the highly skilled, innovative, and
creative manpower that industry demands, our universities and
institutes of technology will need to cater for a rise in demand
for higher education learning opportunities from an increasingly
diverse student cohort including mature students, international
students, and postgraduates (DES, 2011). These students from
a range of backgrounds, of different ages and nationalities, and
of different levels of educational attainment will require access to
high-quality learning that will enable them to build progressively
on their knowledge and experience. The National Skills Strategy
of 2007 recommended that 500,000 of Ireland’s workers should
move up one level on the National Framework of Qualifications
by 2020 – a goal that is even more vital in today’s economic
circumstances (Forfás, 2007).
Expanding and increasing the flexibility of programme provision
in Irish higher education undoubtedly presents challenges for
the sector, especially at a time of declining resources; and some
system-level changes will be crucial to enabling institutions to
meet these challenges. In particular, the HEA is cognisant of the
extent to which the flexibility and responsiveness of the sector to
date has been impeded by the lack of parity in the public funding
of full-time and part-time courses. To address this, changes to
the mechanism through which this funding is administered have
now been instigated, and will incentivise institutions’ flexible
delivery of programmes. The modularisation and semesterisation
of all programmes of study, and the development of module
descriptors and subject guidelines in terms of the learning
outcomes required at each level of the NFQ, will also be vital
to enable students to progressively advance their learning while
moving in and out of higher education throughout their lives.
Academic employment contracts will need to reflect a broader
concept of the academic year and timetable to support the
flexibility, adaptability, and mobility of staff; and there will need to
be greater coordination of management information and online
delivery systems across the sector.9 Institutional leadership will
be vital to incentivise ‘the development, provision, delivery and
assessment of flexible courses and modules’ (HEA, 2009b).
8 As the first financial shared services model to be utilised within Irish higher education, the Shannon Consortium’s Procurement Network
exemplifies the system-level efficiencies achieved through the SIF. The Procurement Network has employed ‘best practice’ procurement
tools to assist partners in maximising in an environmentally sustainable way expenditure on goods and services, and is also illustrative of
the value of the wider institutional restructuring processes that the SIF has facilitated. As Davies acknowledges, ‘SIF has enabled higher
education institutions to restructure academic and administrative processes, streamline management and governance structures, clarify
roles, and delegate responsibility to appropriate levels’. Davies, Report of the SIF Evaluation, 9.
9 DES, National Strategy, 120.

22. 16
While system-level developments will be essential to the
advancement of the flexible learning agenda, it is technology that
provides the key to addressing the considerable challenges facing
the sector in transforming programme provision to meet the up-
skilling needs of the economy and society (UNESCO, 2002). As
Peter Bradwell has observed:
Technology is at the heart of this story of institutional change.
Universities are now just one source among many for ideas,
knowledge and innovation, that seems to threaten their
core position and role, but in this new world of learning and
research, there are also great opportunities. The internet,
social networks, collaborative online tools that allow people
to work together more easily, and open access to content
are both the cause of change for universities, and a tool
with which they can respond. (Bradwell, 2009)
E-learning is a key element of the broader shift towards the
greater flexibility and responsiveness in the delivery of higher
education. It facilitates programme provision that is transcendent
of the limitations of time and space, and that overcomes the
geographical and logistical hurdles that all too often militate
against participation in higher education to make it more socially
inclusive. Flexibility of provision is vital to widening access to
higher education and to the broader responsiveness to the
needs of the wider community and society that is integral to the
mission of the sector (HEA, 2008). It also facilitates the delivery
of courses on an inter-institutional basis and in partnership with
community stakeholders and employers. As UNESCO remark, ‘for
the student/learner open and distance learning means increased
access and flexibility as well as the combination of work and
education’; ‘for employers it offers high-quality and usually cost-
effective professional development in the workplace’; and ‘for
governments the main potential is to increase the capacity and
cost-effectiveness of education and training systems, to reach
target groups with limited access to conventional education and
training’ (UNESCO, 2002).
Moreover, engagement with new teaching and learning
technologies – and particularly Web 2.0 technologies – facilitates
pedagogical innovation that can significantly enhance the
student learning experience. Utilisation of social media,
wikis, blogs, podcasting, and screen-casting can help ‘bring
to the fore [students’] understanding and actively engage
them in a communal discourse of what they already know’,
thereby fostering their integration into the inclusive learning
communities that Vincent Tinto has famously championed as
the key to student retention in higher education (Tinto, 2003).
E-learning can play an important role in providing an active
learning experience that will ‘nurture in students the creativity,
enthusiasm and skills required for continual engagement with
learning’, as well as the technological literacy, critical thinking,
communications, and team-working skills that are essential for
the twenty-first-century graduate (DES, 2011). With the enhanced
availability of open educational resources (OER), teaching and
learning technologies foster the democratisation of learning,
challenging the absolute authority of the academic as the arbiter
of knowledge, de-centering the instructor, and actively involving
the student in the process of knowledge-creation (Hollander,
Saltmarsh, Zlotkowski, 2002).
BlueBrick.ie
The Strategic Innovation Fund has made a contribution to the
advancement of the flexible learning agenda in Irish higher
education, particularly in the institutes of technology. One of
the greatest legacies of the SIF will be that it has created a
sustainable, cost-effective legacy in teaching and learning
capability – capability on which the advancement of the flexible
learning agenda depends. This is evident in the prioritisation of
innovation in teaching and learning under the fund. The SIF has
also assisted in terms of the technological underpinnings and the
crucial support for relevant continuing professional development.
For example, the University of Limerick’s Individualised Digitalised
Educational Advisory System (IDEAS) project provided the
technological infrastructure on which the IOTI’s BlueBrick.ie
portal was subsequently based. The IOTI’s SIF 2-funded
‘Supported Flexible Learning’ project has enabled the institutes
of technology to enhance their capacity to deliver e-learning
(through the reform of internal systems and processes as well
as through the development of supports for staff and students),
and thereby to build on their strong track-record in the delivery of
part-time education within a twenty-first-century global context.
While much of this reform has been at institutional level, the
collective endeavour that the SIF has engendered has ensured
that the development of e-learning and flexible learning has
been transcendent of institutional boundaries.
The BlueBrick.ie online portal is a key output of the IOTI’s
‘Supported Flexible Learning’ project – and one of the most
impressive outputs of Cycle 2 of the SIF.10 As a web-based
admissions portal which enables prospective students to search
and apply for a range of courses offered on a flexible basis
in the institutes of technology, it epitomises the system-wide
enhancement and modernisation that the SIF has facilitated.
Described by Davies as ‘a first step toward establishing genuinely
flexible learning so changes in institutional management and
ways of teaching will enable more people to study more
subjects, in more ways, at more institutions, and on more varied
schedules’, Bluebrick.ie bears testimony to the progress made in
the expansion of flexible programme provision in recent years
(Davies, 2010). It provides the foundation for the establishment
of a comprehensive portal for part-time and flexible learning in
higher education in Ireland which will complement the entry
system operated for full-time undergraduate programmes by
the Central Applications Office (CAO).
10 www.bluebrick.ie.

23. 17
Since May 2011 the BlueBrick.ie portal has played a vital role
in hosting the HEA’s Springboard labour-market activation
initiative, which has provided 5,875 free places on part-time
higher education programmes, from certificate to master’s level,
to unemployed citizens.11 As a means of enabling job-seekers
to re-skill and up-skill in growth areas while retaining their
income support and continuing their search for employment,
the Springboard initiative is central to the Government’s strategy
for economic recovery.12 Its re-launch in 2012 is testimony to
its success and to the continued responsiveness of the higher
education sector to the evolving skills needs of the economy.
Most recently the BlueBrick.ie portal has also hosted the HEA’s
ICT Skills Programme through which free places are being
provided on level 8 graduate conversion programmes in ICT
around the country.13 Designed to address the deficit in high-level
ICT skills in Ireland, and delivered in partnership with industry,
these courses equip graduates of cognate disciplines with core
computing and programming skills, as well as offering a range of
specialisations in niche areas of growth potential such as cloud
computing and web development.
As the host of both the Springboard initiative and the ICT Skills
Programme, BlueBrick.ie is serving as a shared service platform
that advances effectively a number of strategic national priorities
– the flexible and innovative delivery of higher education to
meet the needs of all learners, as well as the up-skilling and
re-skilling of the unemployed. That, through its involvement
with these initiatives, it has been extended to provide coverage
of programmes offered in the university sector is illustrative of
its great potential as a system-wide infrastructure. The IOTI’s
‘Supported Flexible Learning’ project has therefore made a very
tangible contribution to the advancement of the flexible learning
agenda, both in terms of increasing the institutes’ capacity for the
delivery of programmes on a flexible basis and in terms of the
provision of system-level infrastructure to support this.
Flexibility of provision is ‘a key indicator of the responsiveness of
Irish higher education to Irish society’, and will be central to the
development of the sector in the years to come (HEA, 2009a).
The adoption of new and innovative approaches to programme
provision will be essential to bring an increasing number of
citizens up to the skill and competence levels associated with
high levels of educational achievement. That engagement with
new technologies will also be vital to the internationalisation
of Irish higher education, and to its success in an increasingly
competitive global marketplace, and is illustrated by the
increasing importance that Webometrics have assumed in recent
years.14 The IOTI’s ‘Supported Flexible Learning’ project – and
the SIF more broadly – provides a firm foundation on which to
build. The strategic reflection, honest assessment of capabilities,
and collective engagement with common challenges that has
characterised the Strategic Innovation Fund will be of critical
importance in ensuring the system’s external responsiveness
and adaptability to change in the coming years.
References
Bradwell, P. (2009). The Edgeless University: Why Higher
Education Must Embrace Technology. London: Demos.
CORI (1999). Conference of Religious of Ireland, Social
Transformation and Lifelong Learning. Dublin: CORI.
Davies, G. K. (2010). Report of the SIF Evaluation. Dublin: HEA.
Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The Treasure Within: Report to
UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for
the Twenty-First Century. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Department of Education and Science (2000). Learning for
Life: White Paper on Adult Education. Dublin: Stationery Office.
Department of Education and Skills, ICT Action Plan
(Dublin, 2012), www.hea.ie/files/ICT_AP.pdf.
Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Action
Plan for Jobs 2012 (Dublin: DJEI, 2012), www.djei.ie/
publications/2012APJ.pdf.
Economist Intelligence Unit (2012). Investing in Ireland: A Survey
of Foreign Direct Investors. The Economist, 22.
Faure, E. (1972). Learning To Be: The World of Education
Today and Tomorrow. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Forfás (2007). Tomorrow’s Skills: Towards a National Skills
Strategy, 5th Report. Dublin: Expert Group on Future Skills Needs.
HEA (2009a). ‘Submission to the Higher Education Strategy
Group’. Higher Education Authority.
HEA (2009b). Open and Flexible Learning, HEA position paper.
Dublin: HEA.
HEA (2008). National Plan for Equity of Access to Higher
Education 2008–2013. Dublin: HEA.
HEA (2012). Towards a Future Higher Education Landscape,
Process and Criteria for Designation as a Technological
University, and Guidelines on Regional Clusters. Dublin: HEA.
Hollander, E., Saltmarsh, J., Zlotkowski, E. (2002). Indicators of
Engagement. In M. Kenny, L. Simon, K. Kiley-Brabeck, R. Lerner,
Learning to Serve: Promoting Civil Society Through Service
Learning, (pp. 31-49). Boston: Kluwer Academic publishers.
Department of Education and Skills, DES (2011). National
Strategy for Higher Education in Ireland 2011-2030. Dublin:
HEA.
Information Society Ireland (1999). Building a Capacity for
Change: Lifelong Learning in the Information Society. Dublin:
Stationery Office.
11 www.bluebrick.ie/springboard.
12 See Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Action Plan for Jobs 2012 (Dublin: DJEI, 2012),
www.djei.ie/publications/2012APJ.pdf.
13 See www.bluebrick.ie/ICTSkills. See also DES et al, ICT Action Plan (Dublin, 2012), www.hea.ie/files/ICT_AP.pdf.
14 www.webometrics.info. Since 2004, the biannual Webometrics Ranking has assessed higher education institutions’ presence
and visibility on the internet.

24. 18
Irish Government (2007). National Development Plan 2007–
2013. Dublin: Irish Government, Stationery Office.
Knapper, C., Cropley, A. (2000). Lifelong Learning in Higher
Education, 3rd edn. London: Croom Helm.
Lindeman, E. (1989). The Meaning of Adult Education, 4th
edn. Oklahoma: Oklahoma Research Centre for Continuing
Professional and Higher Education.
Ministry of Reconstruction (1919). Final Report of the Adult
Education Committee. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
OECD (2004). Review of Higher Education in Ireland: Examiners’
Report. Retrieved February 2, 2012, from HEAnet: http://heatest-
drupal6.heanet.ie/files/files/file/archive/policy/2006/OECD%20
Examiners%20Report%20-%20Review%20of%20Higher%20
Education%20in%20Ireland%20(2004).pdf.
Tinto, V. (2003). ‘Taking Student Retention Seriously: Rethinking
the University of the Future’, lecture at the Rossier School of
Education, University of Southern California, 17th November
2003.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and
Cures of Student Attrition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
UNESCO (2002). Open and distance Learning; Trends, Policy
and Strategy Considerations. Paris: UNESCO.
Yeaxlee, B. A. (1929). Lifelong Education. London: Cassell.

25. 19
Introduction
The preceding chapters in this section have considered the
Supported Flexible Learning project in terms of the context within
which it has been framed, the systems level impact in terms of
specified performance measures and the introduction of a new
approach to engaging with learners who wish to study in a more
flexible manner; that is BlueBrick.ie. The chapters in the next two
sections will deal with activity and impact at individual institution
level. This chapter considers two categories of activity undertaken
by the central project team, including those working on BlueBrick.
ie, to support the activities of the institutes.
The first activity, described below in Direct Support of Institute
Activity, took many forms: including identification of appropriate
flexible learning software solutions, centrally provided training and
the establishment of various networks.
The second activity, described under Publications and Projects,
took two broad forms. First, those reflecting project activities and
results in articles referenced in journals, conference proceedings
and other publications. Second, because of the concentration
of expertise within the IOTI offices, it was possible to undertake
a small number of short projects not directly related to the
Supported Flexible Learning project but of direct relevance.
Direct Support of Institute Activity
The central team directly supported the work of the institutes
in three ways:
Pedagogical software applications were identified and sourced,
centralised rates were negotiated for group purchase and
training and roll out was organised. Examples of educational
software included in this activity are Mahara (e-portfolio) and
Articulate (authoring software). Another significant activity was
the overseeing of a tendering process for the design and roll out
of a CRM application, built upon Microsoft Dynamics, which is
currently active in a small number of institutes and available for
wider roll out.
A wide range of training and development programmes were
organised and run for individual institutions and groups of
institutions. These programmes included the use of VLEs,
e-assessment, various Google tools, technology-enhanced
learning and group teaching.
Finally, the central team provided support in the development
and management of a number of networks. In particular, with
the completion of the SIF 1 sectoral project that included the
establishment of a Learning Innovation Network (LIN), the
ongoing maintenance of this network was assumed by the
Supported Flexible Learning project. This network will continue
to the end of the current project and, at the time of writing, is
due to extend beyond the current project to the end of 2012.
Publications and Projects
Two broad areas of activity fall into this category.
First, it was decided early in the project that as significant blocks
of work were completed they would be written up and prepared
for publication. The rationale for this was twofold: to ensure that
not all the writing up of activity be left to the end of the project
and to reflect the fact that activity was taking place in and on
behalf of academic institutions and that publications are a widely
accepted measure of performance. See Appendix One for a full
list of publications from the project. Included in this is a report
prepared at an early stage of the project through a tendered
process (Duggan and Oviedo, 2009). The meta-analysis of skills
forecast data were considered an important source of intelligence
for institutions planning their flexible learning provision. This
significant report was also made available to various government
agencies and educational bodies (e.g. FÁS and the VECs).
Second, the concentration of expertise and capacity as a result
of the establishment of this project provided an opportunity to
undertake separately funded but related projects.
Three such projects were undertaken.
The FLLLEX project, run by KH Leuven, Belgium, is addressing
the challenges and implications of incorporating lifelong learning
into European higher education institutions. The project (The Impact
of Lifelong Learning Strategies on Professional Higher Education)
is an EU-funded project under the Transversal Programme,
Key Activity 1. It started on 1 January 2010 and will run until
31 August 2012. The consortium includes 24 partners from
10 European countries. The contribution from the flexible
learning project was to undertake a meta-analysis of lifelong
learning policies with a view to informing the development of an
institutional self-assessment questionnaire. A significant report
was published (Stokes and Thorn, 2010), also listed in the
publications in Appendix One.
EURASHE, the representative organisation for non-university
higher education in Europe, invited IOTI to participate in a
Europe-wide study of short-cycle higher education (Level 5 on
the European qualifications framework). Flexible learning project
members were responsible for collecting and collating data but
not for the final report (Short Cycle Higher Education in Europe
Level 5: the Missing Link. Magda Kirsch and Yves Beernaert,
259pp. EURASHE, Belgium, 2011).
HETAC (the Higher Education Training and Awards Council)
commissioned IOTI to develop an online training programme for
quality assurance panellists and external examiners. The project
involved identifying the knowledge, skills and competencies
required by such individuals and developing a set of training
materials to meet these learning outcomes.
Conclusions
Whilst much of the activity described in this section was not
envisaged as part of the original project plan, it is clear from
the above that the project had a range of positive, unintended
consequences. Any future evaluation of the project would
necessarily include these elements in the review.
Flexible Learning Capacity Building – a
Perspective from the Central Project Team
Dr Mark Glynn and Dr Richard Thorn, Institutes of Technology Ireland

26. 20
Cleary, B., Connolly, C., Glynn, M., Thorn, R. and Murphy, E.
(2011) Increasing opportunities for learners in Ireland, The
Engineers Journal 65(2): 113.
Duggan, N. and Oviedo, A. (2009) Market and Skills Forecast
Data Analysis for Flexible Delivery of Workforce Education Report,
January 2009. 310pp.
Glynn, M. (2010) ‘Flexible Assessment in Undergraduate
Chemistry’, paper presented to International Conference on
Education and New Learning Technologies in Barcelona, Spain,
July 2010.
Glynn, M., Cleary, B., Connolly, C., Thorn, R. and Murphy, E.
(2010) ‘A Technology for Flexible Learning Provision at the
Institutes of Technology Ireland’, paper presented to International
Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies in
Barcelona, Spain, July 2010.
Glynn, M., Maguire, T., Sheridan, I. and Thorn, R. (2010)
‘Proof of Concept of a National Modular Accreditation
Programme‘, AISHE-C Annual Conference in Dublin City
University, 26–27 August 2010.
Glynn, M., Oviedo-Garcia, A. and Thorn, R. (2010) ‘From
Fixed to Flexible Learning – Measuring System Change in Irish
Higher Education’, paper presented to European Association
of Institutional Research Conference ‘Linking Society and
Universities: New Missions for Universities’ in Valencia, Spain,
1–4 September 2010.
Stokes, A. and Thorn, R. (2010) FLLLEX Work Package 1:
National Policies for the Implementation of Lifelong Learning.
Stokes, A., Thorn, R. and Glynn, M. (2010) ‘Institutional Planning
for Flexible and Distance Learning – Contextualisation and
Implementation’, paper presented to National Academy for
the Integration of Teaching and Learning, International Bologna
Summer School, Cork, July 2010.
Thorn, R. (2011) ‘Institutes of Technology in Ireland: Strategic
Position, Workforce Education and Societal Need’, Administration
59(1): 69–76.
Thorn, R. and Glynn, M. (2010) ‘A Collaborative Network for
Flexible Delivery of Higher Education in Ireland – Governance
and Sustainability’, paper presented to UK and Ireland Higher
Education and Institutional Research Network Conference
‘Institutional Research: Informing Institutional Enhancement,
Practice and Strategy’ in Dublin City University, 29–30 June 2010.
Thorn, R. and Glynn, M. (2011) ‘The Use of Embedded Awards in
the Irish National Framework of Qualifications to Promote Lifelong
Learning’, paper presented to L5 Conference, Budapest, Hungary,
January 2011.
Thorn, R. and Glynn, M. (2011) ‘Technology to Reach the Student
and Meet Government Targets’, paper presented to UK and
Ireland Higher Education and Institutional Research Network
Conference on ‘Institutional Research, Planning and QA: Knowing
to Improve What We Do’, Kingston University, London, 16–17
June 2011.
Thorn, R. and Glynn, M. (2011) ‘Technology Enhanced Learning:
A Story from Higher Education in Ireland’, paper presented
to International Conference on Education and New Learning
Technologies, Barcelona, July 2011.
Thorn, R., Glynn, M. and McLoughlin, R. (2010) ‘New Insights and
Approaches to Lifelong Learning’, Technology Enhanced Learning:
Quality of Teaching and Educational Reform, Communications in
Computer and Information Science 73: 675.
Thorn, R., Glynn, M. and McLoughlin, R. (2010) ‘The Learner, the
Market, the Academy – New Insights, New Approaches’, paper
presented to European Association of Institutional Research
Conference ‘Linking Society and Universities: New Missions
for Universities’ in Valencia, Spain,1–4 September 2010.
Appendix One Publications from the Project

27. 21
Introduction
This case study explores the planning and execution of the online
delivery of a Level 8 course as an alternative to the traditional
face-to-face delivery method. The aim was to develop a best-
practice approach to online delivery, with due consideration
of the pedagogical and andragogical issues.
Our central research questions were:
1) Which technologies should be selected to facilitate online
learning?
2) Which course design/redesign issues would arise?
3) What research methodology would be most appropriate
to capture the learning experience and knowledge gained
as the project progressed?
4) What impact would the blended-delivery approach have
on the lecturers?
5) What impact would the blended-delivery approach have
on the students?
Detailed description of the case
In the context of the arrival of the strategic-innovation-funded
flexible learning project, Athlone Institute of Technology (AIT)
decided to develop a process for conversion of existing face-to-
face programmes for online/blended delivery. An action-research
approach was adopted throughout the process, and an existing
Level 8 programme from the School of Business – the Bachelor
of Arts in Applied Accounting – was selected to be the pilot.
The objective of the programme is to provide an academic and
theoretical foundation to part-qualified students or full members
of professional accountancy bodies who have not already
pursued a relevant degree qualification. It gave part-qualified
professional accountancy students and members of professional
accountancy bodies in Ireland the opportunity to gain a degree.
As graduates, they would be able to compete more strongly in a
competitive job market, with the graduates, the profession and
the industry all benefitting from the programme.
Research approach
An Augmented Participatory Action Research approach was
adopted as our methodology. Key stakeholders involved in the
process included the head of department, lecturers, a learning
technologist, IT support and the students themselves. At the
beginning of the conversion process, the project team held
several meetings to clearly define objectives and discuss/
evaluate the available methods of delivery. These initial meetings
constituted the Feasibility Phase of the project. This was followed
by the programme delivery, a two-part Execution Phase (each
part representing one of two semesters), and finally a Conclusion
Phase. A simplified representation of the process is given in
Figure 1 below.
The diagram below also identifies Toll Gates (TG) and
Milestones (MS). Toll Gates are major decision points for Go/
NoGo decisions, which may necessitate a partial repeat of the
preceding phase. Milestones are scheduled meetings to evaluate
preceding and plan following stages of the project.
Converting a Course for Online Delivery
Dr Marc Cashin, Luke Fannon, Eoin Langan and Seamus Ryan
Athlone Institute of Technology
Figure 1 Augmented Participatory Action Research approach