HOME
WORKSHOP BIG IDEAS
(RE-)DESIGN STUDIO
DEVELOPMENT JOURNEY
COURSE / DEGREE
INDEPENDENT ADVICE
TEACHER TRAINING
OPEN STUDIO: RESOURCES
FREELANCER POOL
CLIENT PORTFOLIO
ABOUT
CONTACT / FREE BRAINSTORM SESSION

FLEXIBILISATION, PERSONALISATION

DIFFERENTIATION

—

RECEIVE A CALL TO DISCOVER MORE

^{‘The curriculum is one. What is the curriculum? It has to do with giving students what they didn’t ask for. For me, this is one of the most important things of being an educator. Not to give students what they ask for, but to give what they didn’t ask for or weren’t looking for. (...) This is because students may not even know that they could be looking for it or asking for it, and the educator's work is to open doors, particularly where students didn’t even know that there was a door. (...) The future of education, should not be confused with the future of learning in an impulssociety with flexible learning environment, teachers as facilitators, and personalised learning.’}
Gert Biesta 2025, p.7, also 2022, p. 70-71.


Are you curious for more? Would you like to get in touch? Feel free to contact our lead directly for any questions or inquiries you may have. tikvah@studioblended.com +31 6 42 47 29 69

Flexibilisation, personalisation, differentiation

From the point of view of the (learning) brain, there are good reasons for flexibility in Higher Education. It relates to the way people learn, a reason that makes sense from the point of view of cognitive psychology. The idea of offering freedom of choice to people, collides with the need for self determination. It is a spectrum of autonomy, that also brings enjoyment and the feeling that ‘I want this myself’ (after Verkoeijen 2025).

There is a lot of evidence for this connection between flexibility, autonomy and motivation: ‘decades of psychological theory and research suggests that all kinds of people may feel more competent, more in control, more motivated, perform better, and demostrate better health while they are able to express their preferences and make choices (e.g. Ames, 1992; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Henry, 1994; Karasek, 1979; Langer & Rodin, 1976; Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008; Patall, Cooper, & Wynn, 2010; Perlmuter & Monty; 1977; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Tafarodi, Milne, & Smith, 1999; Taylor, 1989; Taylor & Brown, 1988; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978) in Patall, E.A., Sylvester, B.J. & Han, C. 2014, p. 27.

So then, what is flexibility in Higher Education? As Verkoeijen (2025) states, there is still no fixed definition, but flexible education is often characterised by:
a) Minimization of constraints of access, time and place, pace, and methods of study.
b) Adaptation to students’ needs and preferences.
c) A high degree of student agency.
(after Li Wong 2018, Tucker and Morris 2011, Wade 1994).

‘Flexibility’ has experienced quite a hype cycle in Higher Education following also neoliberal ideas on offering choices (the so-called supermarket model) (see paradigm shift for more on hype cycles). It is still quite a dominant idea (see i.e. EADTU 2025). To illustrate, a Surf (2023, p. 8-9) future campus (2040) trend report writes: ‘The strong trend towards extensive flexibility and personalisation of education, arises from the growing recognition of diverse learning needs and the importance of providing personalised and activating learning experiences. Diversification and customisation through new and adaptive digital technologies influence the continuation of this trend. The prediction is that personalised learning will become the norm, and that extracurricular learning will gain importance.’

A whole spectrum of terminology is being used for modular and flexible approaches that involve student choices, such as choosing their own subjects, internships, minor/major etc. Find a list below for your convenience.

By now even so, we can already identify a variety of challenges (after Verkoeijen 2025):

- The organisation of flexible organisation. Flexibility puts quite some stress on the organisation and the teaching staff. Sometimes this stress is even too much to justify the initiatives.

- Students’ needs with respect to flexibility differ. Some want a lot of flexibility some would like to please have less. They would prefer to simply have a robust program, designed by experts, that they have to take and make it to the certification. Indeed, it’s good to offer such a fixed program as an institution - but can you then cather for all? Even as, if students don’t want it, you may want to reduce the flexibility.

- What students want, is not always what they need. For example, the way in which students study may not be very effective. For example, not spending too much mental effort in the learning, while the opposite is true - you learn better, if you put mental effort in it (for more see our page on evidence-based design). In other words, students own perception of what good learning is, may impact their ideas about flexibilisation.

- Flexibility can be motivating when the options meet the students’ need for autonomy, relatedness and competence. If the choices you offer are not related to what students find valuable and useful, it may not work, or even frustrate them to introduce flexibility. The relatedness part is very important, and relates to whether a student is already used to a more collectivisitic or individualistic culture. Competence might be related to the task itself: if you’re competent, the choice will be more motivating.

- Choice overload. You can also desire too much of a good thing, when you design for flexibilisation. Too much choice can also be stressful, for example the fear to miss out on something. So the question becomes: how many options do you offer? And what support and guidance do you give students to avoid them being perplexed, overwhelmed, and demotivated. How can you make them instead appreciate flexibility?

- How to support student decisionmaking and (self regulated) learning in flexible Higher Education? Typically they need a lot of support before a flexible environment feels safe and natural to them (have a look also at SELFLEX).

It is, in sum, important to keep a researchers attitude towards your own design. Verkoeijen (2025) gives some good questions to keep asking:
- On what dimension(s) is there flexibility for students?
- Is this flexibility by design, and if so, do students actually experience this flexibility?
- What are the goals (why did you design for flexibility?), are these goals achieved, and how do you know?

Is flexibilisation worth the effort? An important bottomline. There is no universal answer to this, as it is very context dependent. In some settings it is very succesful, and in some highly demanding and questionable whether it will pay off eventually. The opportunity cost of time, quality and cost investment is also important to realise. With the same time spent on support and guidance for students in finding their way in a flexible environment, you can also guide them in how to learn well (Verkoeijen 2025).

At STUDIOBLENDED we came to realise that it is important to ask yourself who actually wants a modular approach with its flexibility, differentiation, and inclusivity. Is it you as course/training coordinator because it is the trend, or are the students asking for it? Do you design for flexibility because in your experience flexibility works for you, or is it what your students need most in order to learn effectively? Are you aware when flexibilisation becomes a challenge for you and your team, and your technology? 

As a Studio we made bold choices. Our approach to the trends of flexibilisation and personalisation is that of a pragmatic idealist. We value simplicity, and as such our hindsight in the hype cycle of this concept of flexibility, is that we focus mostly on differentiation options for students/learners, which you could say is a minimalist approach to flexibility, or perhaps has a whole different angle. 

Put simply, differentiation is about challenging each learner at the right level. Differentiation differs from flexibilisation - even as it has many simlarities - by being teacher-lead instead of student lead. The teacher, or the curriculum designer, creates the main program, and the differentiation options for those who are faster or extra interested, and those who possibly need to catch up their prior knowledge or lag behind.

Following Biesta (2025., p.7, 2022, p. 70-71), from a pedagogical angle, we see it as the teachers role - and therefore the educational designer - to (also) offer a curriculum that includes giving the students what they didn’t ask for. Why? Because they may not even know they were looking for it, or asking for it, and the teacher can ‘open the door’.

A robust program path can operate as what we call a ‘fit for purpose framework’ and offer a lot of clarity to students about the learning journey. The differentiation options can be added to that. Moreover, we don’t see modular approaches as primarity related to flexibilisation, but rather, as a smart way to go about your triple constraint of quality, time and cost. Curious? Read more on our approach to technical resilient curriculum design.

Related publications

‘Differentiation’ relates to the so-called ‘zone of proximal development’ (after the pedagogue Vygotsky 1978). Vygotsky (1978:86) calls it ‘the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers’.

The pedagogue Tom senninger (2000) uses the following three terms to explain the zone of proximal development:

1. The Comfort Zone: where what we do is routine and familiar.
2. The Learning Zone (or Growth Zone): where we experiment, develop skills and stretch your abilities.
3. The Panic Zone: where we're tasked with learning something that is well beyond your knowledge, causing us to feel overwhelming and panicked.

We follow the International Baccalaureate’s definition of differentiation.

Find some search terms related to flexibility below, just to illustrate or help you to find your own resources.  

^{Curricular choice
Curricular freedom
Curriculum planning
Curriculum agency
Student agency
Elective course choice
Curriculum customization
Professional development planning
Elective curriculum
Flexible curriculum
Modular curriculum
Choice-based curriculum
Student centered curriculum
Individual educational paths (or plans)
Differentiation
Learning ecology
Permeable curriculum
Responsive curriculum
Nonlinear curriculum
Hyflex / Hiflex curriculum}

Inspired by a first scoping of the meaning of ‘flexible curriculum’ Eveline Kallenberg, PhD candidate Utrecht Medical Centre

Key projects

StudioBlended is currently partnering with an institute for capacity building within a European University, to co-create an impactful MOOC for this client (2025-June 2026). The curriculum design is completely modular, and offers modular differentiation options next to the main learning journey, in the form of a playful ‘library’ with knowledge video clips for those who need to update their knowledge. The knowledge clips provide defintions of ‘jargon’ terms in the discours, and the background against which the discussion around context-based humanitarians can be understood. For those who are eager to learn more, there are extra materials, from the rich spectrum of resources of the research centre.

European funded program.

More information follows soon.



We ran a pilot with ‘Learning Ecology’, offering a modular approach with individual pathways from our StudiOpedia to PhD candidates from the South of Europe. We discovered how such an approach unfolds in practice in terms of teacher resilience, and how to ensure effective learning for the student.

The suggested power of the learning ecology concept lies in overcoming the rigid separation of formal and informal learning, by combining a continuum of contexts to deepen your learning journey, mediated by digital technology (After Sangra, Raffaghelli, and Guitert-Catasus 2019).

Curious after our results? Have a look under ‘modular’. Eager to exchange experiences? Feel free to contact us directly
tikvah@studioblended.com

More design angles we use

Technical resilience
Big ideas
Paradigm shifts/decade strong
Simplicity and decluttering
Human resilience
Modular
Innovative and deep pedagogy
Assesment / evaluation
Time dimension
Evidence-based design
Financial health and resilience by (re)design
Multi- Inter- and transdisciplinary
Flexibilisation and personalisation
Blended



Curios? Feel free to contact our independent senior advisor directly:
tikvah@studioblended.com

References

Biesta, G. (2025). ‘The Future of Education in an Impuls Society: Why schools and teachers matter’, Prospects, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-025-09723-1This article is a verbatim transcript of a lecture given on 19 April 2024 at the University of Lisbon as part of a series of invited UNESCO lectures on the future of education.

Biesta, G. (2022) World-Centered Education; A view for the present. New York and London: Routledge.

European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU) (2025) ‘Personalisation of Education. Enhaning equity, Learner Agency, and Academic Success’. Co-funded by the European Union. Available: https://zenodo.org/records/17279059?utm_source=Personalisation+of+E%2E%2E%2E+%28Mass+Mailing+created+on+2025-10-14%29+%5B2%5D&utm_medium=Email (Accessed: October 27, 2025).

Li, K.C., Wong, B.Y.Y. (2018). ‘Revisiting the Definitions and Implementation of Flexible Learning’, in: Li, K., Yuen, K., Wong, B. (eds) Innovations in Open and Flexible Education. Education Innovation Series. Singapore: Springer. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7995-5_1 (Accessed: October 27, 2025).

Patall, E.A., Sylvester, B. J., Han, C. (2014), ‘The role of competence in the effects of choice on motivation’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 27-44. Surf (2023). ‘Future Campus trend report: A look at the Future of the Campus in 2040’. Available: https://www.surf.nl/files/2023-06/surf_trendrapport-future-campus_web_nl.pdf (Accessed: October 27, 2025).

Tucker, R., Gayle, M. (2011) ‘Anytime, anywhere anyplace: articulating the meaning of flexible delivery in built environment education’, British Journal of Educational Technology. October 2010, 42(6) : 904-915. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01138.x 

Verkoeien, P. (2025) ‘Flexibility, motivation and learning: Opportunities and Challenges.’ Community for Learning & Innovation (CLI) Lunch & Learn, Erasmus University, 9 October. 
Professor of applied sciences, Brain and Learning research group, Center of Expertise Future- proof Education (Avans University of Applied Sciences). Endowed professor of educational and cognitive psychology, Methods and Skills team, Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies (Erasmus University Rotterdam)


Wade, W., Hodgkinson, K., Smith, A. and Arfield, J. (1994). Flexible Learning in Higher Education (Teaching and Learning in Higher Education). Routledge, UK. Availalbe: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315041575 (Accessed: October 27, 2025).

Resilient education that stands the test of time - by design.