Few pics from Perth and Sydney. Looking forward to @smythkrs: #ascilite2013 starts tomorrow so looking forward to that and the next post will be an update from the conference
Month: November 2013
Where Sheila's been this week
Where Sheila’s been this week.
A little video of my first week in Oz
What Sheila's seen this week
This week started with the 2nd Open Data Glasgow meet-up on Monday night. There were a fascinating range of presentations which Lorna Campbell has helpfully summarised in this blog post.
Duncan Bain’s presentation on open approaches to architecture provoke a lot of discussion around the cultural barriers in adopting openness. In particular there were comparisons made between software development and the common sharing of code and the lack of similar sharing in architecture. Given the impact buildings have on all our lives, having more collaborative, open approaches does seem to make perfect sense – but when did that make a difference anywhere 🙂
Hearing an architect talking about design patterns and co-design approaches was also quite a change for me, as my introduction to these concepts has been through research around learning design where these concepts of design language and approaches have been “appropriated” or should I say re-used? and are being used fairly successfully. The overall concepts certainly cross over well.
@sheilmcn hehe you've had some bad influences! we (LD ppl) had commandeered the idea of design patterns from architecture via software.
— 🟣 ישי מור yishay mor يشاي مور (@yishaym) November 20, 2013
On Monday I also came across the QAA report on Students Expectations and Perceptions of HE report, and I’ve been having some great twitter conversations with Peter Reed and Mark Stubbs about what Mark calls technology “hygiene factors”, which are all too often not given the recognition they need. Peter has been sharing the findings of surveys he’s conducted with staff and students around their use of TEL and he helpfully produced this post contexualising the hygiene issues too.
I found Peter’s findings around students expectations of lecture capture particularly revealing
“the most striking thing for me is that so many HEIs appear to buying into incredibly expensive, sophisticated lecture capture systems. Internal work at Liverpool costed out what it would take to rig out all our lecture rooms – the cost was around £4 million. In actual fact, the majority of students would just prefer simple audio sync’ed with the slides, which can be achieved for about £30k (I think)”
Lecture capture is something that is on our agenda here at GCU, like most we’ve had/are having mixed responses. The University of Leicester held a “great debate” on the issue this week too. Grainne Connole’s post summarises the outcome. It’s also worth checking out Alan Cann’s What’s wrong with lecture capture post, summarising his experiences and contribution to the debate.
Twitter timeline from 2nd #opendataGLA meet up #okfn
Last night saw the 2nd Glasgow Open Data meet up. Another great night with presentations ranging from openness in education, to open badges to open cities to open architecture to open maps. Not sure if I will have time to blog or do a proper storify but here are some of the tweets. Thanks to everyone who came along, the presenters and Jennifer and Graham for live-streaming the event.
Tweets by @sheilmcnSome thoughts on the "Students expectations and perceptions of higher education" report
Via a tweet from David Walker I’ve just come across a QAA research report produced by Kings College around students expectations and perceptions of higher education.
The aims of the project were to provide:
- A better understanding of student perceptions of quality and standards, leading to the possibility of more effective relationships within and across institutions
- Sector, academic and student groups that are better equipped to understand student engagement and thus facilitate enhancement
- Examine the impact of recent policy developments on students’ perceptions of quality
- A more developed understanding of how perceptions vary across student groups. iinstitutional types and regional settings
Although it’s primary focus was on students in English institutions, and the impact of increasing fees, a number of the key recommendations have wider applicability to the rest of the UK and beyond.
A couple of the recommendations stood out for me including:
1. Students’ Framing of Ideology: Consumerist ethos: Student perceptions of value.
I’ve been trying to write something polite about this, but in light of experiences at my former host institution finding it very hard! Needless to say, there needs to be more real buy-in and recognition of the importance of educational development within universities along side research activities. . . I’m very happy now to be in an institution that is providing increased opportunities and backing up rhetoric with adequate numbers of dedicated staff for CPD in educational development.
Related to this:
5. Staff: Attributes, practices and attitudes.
“Students praised enthusiastic, experienced and engaged staff, but wanted mechanisms in place to develop staff and to manage ‘bad’ teachers. Students wanted staff to be qualified and trained . . .”
In relation to perceptions of technology the points below jumped out at me:
2. Students’ Framing of Practice: Student expectations of the learning environment: Clear benchmarks.
“Students’ expected their learning environment to meet clear benchmarks across four areas: instrumental (computers and physical spaces); organisational (timetabling and course structure); interpersonal (staff support and engagement); and academic (lecturers’ knowledge and attitude towards students).”
This reminds me of many of the findings from the Jisc DVLE and Curriculum Design programmes and in particular what Mark Stubbs refers to as the “hygiene” factors that really need to be in place in learning environments to support students. We really need to concentrate on having these basics in place we can move on to other “shinier” things.
In this section the executive summary also states:
“Students value face‐to‐face interactions for learning and support. Students viewed technology as a means to access resources and support studying, and no students mentioned pedagogical uses of digital technologies.” (NB words in bold are my own emphasis)
“Recommendation: Institutions should be cautious of using technology as a replacement for face‐to‐face interactions, or as a substitute for developing an active and collaborative learning environment and community.“
I would agree that technology shouldn’t be seen as a replacement, but if we allow our staff more time for CPD then many more may be able to see the affordances that technology can bring to their teaching and in particular collaboration, and allow more students to understand that the use of technology in learning is not just about retrieval of content and uploading of assessments.
Once again another argument for emphasis on creating blended learning opportunities?