Staff believed that the course was indeed student centred, and that there was a higher level of flexibility. However, they also believed that students abused the flexibility issue:
I asked them to read things… they weren’t doing it. … Well that is then the nub of the course, it is the expectation of the student of what they [students] are expected to do [by a student centred course]. If they [students] think by coming in half as many hours a week as a traditional part time course it is to do half as much work, we haven’t really achieved what we were initially trying to achieve. What we are expecting them to do is quite a bit more on their own, aren’t we? Using whatever resources we provide them.
One of the suggestions to resolve this issue was by assessment:
“…So that is carrot and stick then isn’t it, just the same with the [full time] undergraduate students, they won’t do it unless you make it assessed.”
Staff also mentioned that the induction was neither successful in technically equipping the students nor socialising. Too many induction issues were left to students to discover on their own.