ABSTRACT
The use of a commercially-produced computer program in a third year biological sciences (microbiology) subject for Science students is consistent with flexible delivery. Students are required to complete modules of the program in their own time, in lieu of class time. The students determined how they explored the material (either by themselves or with other students), when they accessed the material (week days or week-end), where they accessed the material (either in the Department or Library), the number of times they accessed the material and the pace of their learning. Questionnaires were distributed at the completion of the work (week 6). Most students indicated this format was enjoyable, and they were provided with opportunities to increase their academic knowledge, and to develop practical and work skills.

Introduction

This paper is a case study which outlines the rationale for the introduction of flexible delivery materials last year for a third year Science class, the development of an evaluation questionnaire for students, and the results of that evaluation.

A new computer program was jointly purchased by our Department and the University's Library Multimedia Services in 1996. The program provided high quality, microscopic images and the facility for self-assessment.There were only four copies purchased, and because of this limitation, students would not be able to complete the material during one hour of class contact time. Alternative arrangements were needed for adequate student access to the program. It was not possible to put a commercial product on the Web.

Upon reflection, "flexible delivery" materials had been created (by accident, rather than design) due to the limited availability of high quality material, suitable for use in practical classes.

Course outline

This third year subject is optional and is mainly taken by students who are in the final undergraduate semester of their Science degree.

During the first five weeks students are involved in two types of instructional formats every week. Students perform laboratory experiments and participate in teacher-centred discussions for three hours per week. The other one hour of work per week requires the students to complete a computer program in their own time, which is consistent with the University's definition of flexible delivery. The students decided how they explored the material (either by themselves or with other students), when they accessed the material (weekdays or week-end), where they accessed the material (either in the Department or Library), the number of times they accessed the material and the pace of their learning.

The evaluation

Questionnaires were designed as part of a research project for the Graduate Certificate in Education (GCE), and they were modifications of questionnaires published in two papers. The questions were based on an evaluation of students' learning opportunities in a student centred course in biological sciences.The response scale was part of an evaluation of students' approaches to study, and the response options were:

• agree,
• agree with reservations,
• unsure,
• disagree with reservations, and
• disagree.

Results

Learning during computer sessions (flexible delivery)
In the sixth week, students (N=10) answered a series of questions relating to their learning opportunities after five weeks of using a computer program in their own time.

The percentage of students who answered "agree" or "agree with reservations" is as follows:

"There were opportunities to increase my academic knowledge of the subject area"	90%
"There were opportunities for the development of practical skills"	60%
"There were opportunities for the development of relevant work skills"	60%
"There were opportunities for personal development"	80%
"There were opportunities to develop my own areas of interest"	80%
"This format of work was enjoyable"	90%

Learning during "wet" laboratory sessions
In the sixth week, students (N=10) also answered a series of questions relating to their learning opportunities after five weeks of "wet"laboratory work.

The percentage of students who answered "agree" or "agree with reservations" is as follows:

"There were opportunities to increase my academic knowledge of the subject area"	90%
"There were opportunities for the development of practical skills"	90%
"There were opportunities for the development of relevant work skills"	70%
"There were opportunities for personal development"	70%
"There were opportunities to develop my own areas of interest"	70%
"This format of work was enjoyable"	90%

Comparison of student perceptions of learning opportunities
A comparison of the two instructional formats can be expressed as a numerical difference in the responses for each question. The difference in the percentage of students who answered "agree" or "agree with reservations" for each question is shown below.

"Knowledge"		0%
"Practical skills"	-*	30%
"Work skills"	-*	10%
"Personal development"		10%
"Own interest"		10%
"Enjoy"		0%

* A minus sign indicates a higher percentage of students answered "agree" or "agree with reservations"for the "wet" laboratory sessions.

The differences for each question were minor (considering the small sample size).

Future directions

This evaluation done last year as part of the GCE provided useful feedback for the subject overall. The students indicated a preference for using this computer program rather than obtaining the information in a traditional way, using microscopes. For this reason, the computer program was used in the same way this year, and will continue in this format for at least another year. The format of this subject is consistent with the department's wish to reduce the "wet" component of practical subjects for Science students.

There is a need for a specific evaluation focusing on the "flexible delivery aspects" of this subject. An evaluation of the effectiveness of the flexible delivery format and materials still needs to be done, using newly designed survey questions.

Reflections

The advertising of this conference this year made me aware, for the first time, that I had incorporated flexible materials, on-campus, into one of my subjects. The computer program was not included for "flexible delivery" reasons, but to increase the accessibility of student materials. I have since realised that I thought flexible delivery was confined to web-based material only.

The willingness of the third year students to accept the computer program in a flexible delivery format was a complete surprise to me. I expected them to dislike any format which required them to do work in their own time, and to make decisions about all aspects of the learning of this material. The standard of the computer program was so good (and expensive!), that it smoothly replaced traditionally presented materials. Material of this nature is hard to find for practical classes, particularly at third level.

I was surprised that overall, the group rated the learning opportunities in two different formats similarly (again considering the small sample size). However, every group is different, and the responses can vary from year to year - I have learnt that you can never predict student reaction! Although last year the enrolment in the subject was small, I always prefer to try new ideas on smaller class sizes first.

The survey forms used in this study were not designed to focus on the flexible delivery aspects of the materials. This evaluation directly compared the effectiveness of different formats to provide opportunities for learning. As indicated earlier, another survey would need to be designed to evaluate such aspects.

Having introduced flexible learning to a small class of undergraduate students quite by accident, I would like to develop instructional materials which encouraged student directed learning in large classes using web-based flexible delivery materials, and look forward to doing so.

Acknowledgments

I thank the staff and students of the Department of Microbiology associated with this subject. I also thank the staff associated with the1996 Graduate Certificate in Education, especially Dr Donna Sattherwait (Graduate School of Education, co-ordinator of GCE Biological Sciences stream)and those dedicated people from TEDI.

This work was part of my GCE project, which was funded by my department, and a bursary provided by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for professional development.