What are the differences in learning styles between students and educators who teach and/or design their e-learning environments? Are there variations in the learning styles of students at different levels of study? How may we use this learning styles data to inform the design in e-learning environments? This paper details mixed-methods research with three cohorts teaching and learning in e-learning environments in higher education: novice undergraduate e-learners, graduate e-learners, and educators teaching in, or designing for, e-learning environments (Willems, 2010). Quantitative findings from the Index of Learning Styles (ILS) (Felder & Silverman, 1988; Felder & Soloman, 1991, 1994) reflect an alignment of the results between both the graduate e-learner and e-educator cohorts across all four domains of the ILS, suggesting homogeneity of results between these two cohorts. By contrast, there was a statistically significant difference between the results of the graduate and educator cohorts with those of the undergraduate e-learners on two domains: sensing-intuitive (p=0.015) and the global-sequential (p=0.007), suggesting divergent learning style preferences. Qualitative data was also gathered to gain insights on participants' responses to their learning style results.

Educational equity is premised on the right of individuals to a higher education irrespective of their age, geographical location, gender, race, physical ability, or socio-economic background in order to improve their income generation and hence quality of life (Santiago et al., 2008). In the digital age, distance-, flexible-, mobile-, virtual- and e-learning are all being promoted as means by which disadvantaged learners from around the globe can access, participate in, and achieve the outcome of post-secondary qualifications. They are also promoted as the means by which staff can participate in commensurate employment irrespective of their personal circumstances. This paper examines equity as a key benchmark for both students and staff in an era of changing demands and changing directions in higher education. While grounded in the literature, the paper incorporates ethnographic (student voice) and autoethnographic (staff voice) exemplars to highlight ways that disadvantage is experienced in technologically-mediated education.

The interlinked terms flexible learning and flexible delivery, in both skills-based and knowledge-based post-secondary contexts, have been conceptualized in a vast number of ways and according to the perspective of the various stakeholders involved. These stakeholders have been identified as the politicians, managers, administrators, marketers, program and product developers, teachers, support staff, and students involved in any flexible-learning program (Willems 2005). My focus is on the perceptions held by the end-users of flexible learning and delivery: the students themselves. This client base is far from homogeneous: like other stakeholder groups, students approach flexible learning with diverse perceptions and desires. In terms of learning, what constitutes "flexible" for one student can be "rigid" for another. To inform pedagogy and practice, this chapter explores some of the many interpretations of flexible learning from a student-centred perspective, reinforcing these viewpoints with case study examples (Willems 2004).