This resource is based on a forum discussion moderated by Kathy Whye that took place 14 - 17 October 2002.

In a quest to seek a definition of ‘marginalised learner,’ in the context of flexible learning, we have made a surprising discovery! We have come to the conclusion that every learner can be marginalised and therefore not successful in their studies. So a marginalised learner is not necessarily a migrant with poor language skills, someone returning to study after a number of years or someone with a disability - it can be anyone! How are we going to build a flexible learning environment for all our learners?

Who really are the marginalised learners?
Some NESB students are very successful when studying, say, IT. The teachers feel that this is because they have a chance to practice at their own pace, come to grips with the knowledge and jargon, and are more at ease asking a teacher a question over the phone than in a classroom - it takes away some of the embarrassment factor and gives them confidence to come to grips with the knowledge in their head, in their own language.

When discussing people with a disability, I'm not so sure they are as marginalised. I speak from personal experience of my 18 year old intellectually challenged daughter. She gets the type of assistance I would envy as a learner. True, she would have no hope at all in completing tasks without that sort of support, but it just goes to prove the point. NESB and others may not have a disability, but the principle is the same. Meet their personal needs and everyone (except those who have to pay the cost of such a service) will be happy.

Learning styles
When a teacher presents long screens of written information students who are visually dominant learners have problems accessing that material – and are therefore marginalised.

We are in danger of marginalising learners if we don’t find out about their learning styles, discuss their learning styles with them and then present at least some of the unit in the style they prefer.

I suspect that some learners begin with all the positivity and motivation possible but become marginalised through the teacher's actions and behaviour, for example, by a clash of teaching vs. learning styles.

If we don't value and recognise prior learning we can turn a committed learner into someone who doesn't engage fully with the material.

All learners are marginalised to some degree. There will always be learning barriers unless we are on-hand ready to support and encourage on a personal basis when the student needs it.

You can offer all sorts of opportunities to learners but at the end of the day, they usually revert back to what they are familiar and comfortable with. In the case of my apprentices, I have encouraged, trialled, blended, forced and demanded them to look at options and ways to engage in learning to satisfy their own needs as well as the requirements of the Certificate they are studying. The results have been mixed, but the surprising thing is that even those who said they liked some of the different opportunities and styles of learning still wanted to go back to the methods of learning they had been raised with. The only time this changed was when one to one interaction between student and lecturer was offered. In this case, independent learning was welcomed, as long as the experienced person and their support was not too far away. Unfortunately one on one is not very practical or cost effective.

It seems we need to teach to the learning style and needs of the individual....and where do we get the money to do that?

Let's be realistic - most teachers are working in pressured environments where the time required to 'individualise learning' is simply not available. So learners tend to get a 'one size fits all' teaching style, whether they like it or not. This has the potential to be even more scary in online learning where you don't have visual cues from your learners (eg learner squirming on chair, looking confused).

Reading through these postings, I wonder if we have it all a bit wrong - should we be putting more energy into identifying learners who are at risk of being 'marginalised' prior to commencing course delivery (online or otherwise)? Is there any way to identify such at risk learners?

Do we cater to individual learning styles but also get the student to push the boundaries so that they end up with a preferred style, but also tolerate other ways of learning?

I have decided to apply the 4MAT learning system to my online modules. This is a cyclic system and also incorporates left and right brain preferences.
Bernice McCarthy's 4MAT system
http://www.decs.act.gov.au/publicat/litnumVET/20styles/vet2015.htm

I am currently running a project aimed at increasing the participation of people with disabilities in ACE. Instead of running a specific course, we are focusing on a workable model which takes up principles of team teaching and action learning. The participants drive the context and we work on refining the structure as we go. Currently it's project-based. We hope to develop the model into one which works over a variety of learning areas and styles. Regardless of whether a group is 'disadvantaged' or 'marginalised', we hope the structure can be applied in any learning situation.

Katrina Sommers has been researching type (like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator) and learning styles. Here’s a snapshot of her findings so far. It also contains some good links to other stuff, including specific information on learning styles and online learning.
http://www.yarranet.net.au/aceweb/econf/learningstyles.htm

Trade students don’t have the same computer access
What works for one industry does not necessarily work for another. For business and management studies online learning is a viable option. Most students will have access to reasonable computer power and resources. Not so with Heavy Vehicle or automotive apprentices whose businesses often do not have access to the Internet, let alone allow apprentices to have access to a computer. The vast majority are only interested in survival and the thought of becoming Learning Communities whilst still being profitable is a concept that barely gets to first base before being rejected out of hand.

I have set up the Heavy Vehicle Online program using the subjects I facilitate and manage but use it for the communications tools only. As I have said earlier, online is not a viable option for us because our industry, despite the advances in technology in many areas, is still slow to embrace computers as a tool for accessing relevant service and repair information.

Uncomfortable with computers
One way a learner can be marginalised is by having a ‘fear of technology.’ Whereas some learners enjoy the challenge of working with new software in an online program, the learner with a fear of technology struggles, but often hides this struggle. What does surface when a teacher/facilitator makes contact is often not the real issue. Responses such as; "been busy, but will get on to it" or "had some service provider problems, but should be okay now" are ways of externalising the problem. This seems a safer option than being open and saying "look, I am struggling here, the energy and frustration I am having understanding is limiting me to get to the actual work…help!" So yes we need to work with learners to check in on their mindsets, but it’s important to approach this using good practice facilitator skills, which many of us don’t have. This is so crucial in an online medium, where the power of the word and the potential for a learner to bury their real issues is particularly prevalent.

Anywhere, anytime … just as long as it’s in the classroom
I think one reason some teachers use online courses in the classroom is that it is a way of being "seen" to be "flexible" while still maintaining some control of the learning process. This may sound a little harsh but there are still a lot of traditionalists amongst my colleagues despite the moving on of the world. I think this is rather sad, but if the results for students are there, who am I to be critical?

Using online courses in the classroom has proved to be a very effective way of initiating students into studying online. Once the student is comfortable with this type of environment they will be able to participate in online courses as independent learners.

Last year I interviewed students coming through our program about online learning and flexible delivery. Here’s the results:

• Of each group of 12 students, less than half had access to a computer either at work or at home.
• Of this reduced group, less than half again said they would look at studying online as an option.
• Almost no one said they would study from home saying instead they would ‘just come in to TAFE to do their online learning.’

Kind of defeats the purpose doesn't it?

I have learnt that the majority of online courses being run through our Institute (not that there are that many) are used in classroom teaching and not necessarily by students from off-campus locations. It seems to me we have a long way still to go.

Teacher PD needed!
Traditionally TAFE Lecturers were industry experts who had a desire to share their knowledge. They may not have had formal teaching qualifications. I have had the luxury of formal teacher training and have gained a B Ed. I have noticed that many of my colleagues do not have this level of qualification. Their motivation and enthusiasm keeps them involved. The introduction of Training Packages has been responsible for giving staff a minimum qualification - Certificate IV in Assessment and Workplace Training. This barely prepares lecturers for a face-to-face environment, let alone an online environment!

All teachers should be excited by the possibilities and engaged with the pedagogy...but people seem to be so overwhelmed with AQTF, quality systems and training packages that there is little time to get to the 'good' bits.’

It seems adopting a model of having a mix of current industry professionals and teachers with an industry background is the way to go....but does that create two classes of teachers?

I think we can do the learning style analysis simply at the beginning of every course. I think that it will benefit all students. We need to have a menu of options and strategies so that it is simple. And we need PD for teachers so that they know what to do with the information once they have it.

Is the system fighting flexible learning?
I know of various pre-vocational courses where applicants must be selected through an interview process. The minimum standards and the learning program is clearly explained and discussed. Unfortunately at the end of all this it is discovered that there are not enough students who meet the minimum requirements, so rather than cancel the course, the gates are swung open and everyone willing to pay the money is enrolled! The entire process is a sham and those responsible for facilitating the course are faced with an uphill battle right from the start. The point I am trying to make here is - identifying the learning needs before the course begins is one thing, but if it threatens whether the course will run at all, then it does not appear to be important any more. This may change if the TAFE system could cope with open entry, open exit. Individual programs do have this but my experience has been that the system does not cope with it. Remember we are still funded by ancient criteria. When numbers are irrelevant then a course will run whether there is one or twenty in it.

The TAFE system cannot handle catering to students’ learning styles because we are funded by outdated policies and various State Governments strive to cut funding wherever possible.

There appears still to be this assumption by managers that flexible delivery means reduced costs and they get all excited when it isn't realised.

If it's the system that marginalises learners then teachers haven't got a hope! Or have they...? I'd like to think that on an individual level, teachers are trying to look after the best interests of their learners.

Further reading:
Preparing Students for Elearning
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/Preparingstudents.htm
From OLDaily newsletter

Contributors
Tony Arrowsmith, Jai Cheswick , Rose Grozdanic, Louise Housden, Mark Long, Marg O'Connell, Stuart Tyler, Tanya Wadwell, Kathy Whye