HigherEd 2.0: Using social media in engineering education

Social media (blogs, wikis, video, and a digital authoring culture) has emerged in the last decade as a dominant feature of the technology landscape, especially for our current generation of digital-native students. Leveraging these tools for higher education in general, and engineering education in particular, should be of immediate and pressing concern for engineering educators. This discussion summarizes the HigherEd 2.0 project, the creative convergence of higher education and “web 2.0” technologies into a system for education that: (i) deploys specific social media technologies to support student learning; (ii) leverages the efficiencies of those tools for flexible, customized learning; and (iii) promotes the social features of learning and empowers students to author sharable course materials for their peers. This discussion presents evaluation data about the project, including both qualitative and quantitative outcomes, and correlates student usage of the social media elements of the course with their academic performance. This wide-ranging, multi-institution project holds interesting lessons and promising suggestions for using social media in higher education settings

The Blended Learning Unit, University of Hertfordshire: A Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Evaluation Report for HEFCE

The University of Hertfordshire’s Blended Learning Unit (BLU) was one of the 74 Centres for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETLs) funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) between 2005 and 2010. This evaluation report follows HEFCE’s template. The first section provides statistical information about the BLU’s activity. The second section is an evaluative reflection responding to 13 questions. As well as articulating some of our achievements and the challenges we have faced, it also sets out how the BLU’s activity will continue and make a significant contribution to delivery of the University of Hertfordshire’s 2010-2015 strategic plan and its aspirations for a more sustainable future. At the University of Hertfordshire, we view Blended Learning as the use of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to enhance the learning and learning experience of campus-based students. The University has an excellent learning technology infrastructure that includes its VLE, StudyNet. StudyNet gives students access to a range of tools, resources and support 24/7 from anywhere in the world and its robustness, flexibility and ease of use have been fundamental to the success of the Blended Learning agenda at Hertfordshire. The BLU has comprised a management team, expert teachers seconded from around the University, professional support and a Student Consultant. The secondment staffing model was essential to the success of the BLU. As well as enabling the BLU to become fully staffed within the first five months of the CETL initiative, it has facilitated access to an invaluable spectrum of Blended Learning, research and Change Management expertise to inform pedagogically sound developments and enable change to be embedded across the institution. The BLU used much of its capital funding to reduce barriers to the use of technology by, for example, providing laptop computers for all academic staff in the institution, enhancing classroom technology provision and wirelessly enabling all teaching accommodation. Its recurrent funding has supported development opportunities for its own staff and staff around the institution; supported evaluation activities relating to individual projects and of the BLU’s own impact; and supported a wide range of communication and dissemination activities internally and externally. The BLU has led the embedding a cultural change in relation to Blended Learning at the University of Hertfordshire and its impact will be sustained. The BLU has produced a rich legacy of resources for our own staff and for others in the sector. The University’s increased capacity in Blended Learning benefits all our students and provides a learning experience that is expected by the new generation of learners in the 21st century. The BLU’s staffing model and partnership ways of working have directly informed the structure and modus operandi of the University’s Learning and Teaching Institute (LTI). Indeed a BLU team will continue to operate within the LTI and help drive and support the implementation of the University’s 2010-2015 Strategic plan. The plan includes ambitions in relation to Distance Learning and Flexible learning and BLU will be working to enable greater engagement with students with less or no need to travel to the university. As well as opening new markets within the UK and overseas, even greater flexibility for students will also enable the University to reduce its carbon footprint and provide a multifaceted contribution to our sustainability agenda. We conclude this executive summary with a short paragraph, written by Eeva Leinonen, our former Deputy Vice-Chancellor, which reflects our aspiration to transform Learning and Teaching at the University of Hertfordshire and more widely in the sector. ‘As Deputy Vice Chancellor at Hertfordshire I had the privilege to experience closely the excellent work of the Blended Learning Unit, and was very proud of the enormous impact the CETL had not only across the University but also nationally and internationally. However, perhaps true impact is hard to judge at such close range, but now as Vice Principal (Education) at King's College London, I can unequivocally say that Hertfordshire is indeed considered as the leading Blended Learning university in the sector. My new colleagues at King's and other Russell Group Universities frequently seek my views on the 'Hertfordshire Blended Learning' experience and are keen to emulate the successes achieved at an institutional wide scale. The Hertfordshire CETL undoubtedly achieved not only what it set out to achieve, but much more in terms of scale and impact. All those involved in this success can be justifiably proud of their achievements.’ Professor Eeva Leinonen, Vice Principal (Education), King's College, Londo

Learning from Digital Natives: Bridging Formal and Informal Learning. Final Report

Overview This report suggests that students are increasingly making use of a variety of etools (such as mobile phones, email, MSN, digital cameras, games consoles and social networking sites) to support their informal learning within formalised educational settings, and that they use the tools that they have available if none are provided for them. Therefore, higher education institutions should encourage the use of these tools. Aims and background This study aimed to explore how e-tools (such as mobile phones, email, MSN, digital cameras, games consoles and social networking sites) and the processes that underpin their use can support learning within educational institutions and help improve the quality of students’ experiences of learning in higher education (pgs 9-11). Methodology The study entailed: (i) desk research to identify related international research and practice and examples of integration of e-tools and learning processes in formal educational settings; (ii) a survey of 160 engineering and social work students across two contrasting Scottish universities (pre- and post-1992) – the University of Strathclyde and Glasgow Caledonian University – and follow-up interviews with eight students across the two subject areas to explore which technologies students were using for both learning and leisure activities within and outside the formal educational settings and how they would like to use such technologies to support their learning in both formal and informal settings; and (iii) interviews with eight members of staff from across the institutions and two subject areas to identify their perceptions of the educational value of the e-tools. (pgs 24-27). Key findings • Students reported making extensive use of a variety of both e-tools (such as mobile phones, email, MSN, digital cameras) and social networking tools (such as Bebo, MySpace, Wikipedia and YouTube) for informal socialisation, communication, information gathering, content creation and sharing, alongside using the institutionally provided technologies and learning environments. • Most of the students owned their own computer or had access to a sibling or parent’s computer. Many students owned a laptop but preferred not to bring it onto campus due to security concerns and because they found it too heavy to carry about. • Ownership of mobile phones was ubiquitous. • Whilst the students’ information searching literacy seemed adequate, the ability of these students to harness the power of social networking tools and informal processes for their learning was low. Staff reported using a few Web 2.0 and social software tools but they were generally less familiar with how these could be used to support learning and teaching. There were misconceptions surrounding the affordances of the tools and fears expressed about security and invasion of personal space. Considerations of the costs and the time it would take staff to develop their skills meant that there was a reluctance to take up new technologies at an institutional level. • Subject differences emerged in both staff and student perceptions as to which type of tools they would find most useful. Attitudes to Web 2.0 tools were different. Engineers were concerned with reliability, using institutional systems and inter-operability. Social workers were more flexible because they were focused on communication and professional needs. • The study concluded that digital tools, personal devices, social networking software and many of the other tools explored all have a large educational potential to support learning processing and teaching practices. Therefore, use of these tools and processes within institutions, amongst staff and students should be encouraged. • The report goes on to suggest ways in which the use of such technologies can help strengthen the links between informal and formal learning in higher education. The recommendations are grouped under four areas – pedagogical, socio-cultural, organisational and technological

Teaching and learning in virtual worlds: is it worth the effort?

Educators have been quick to spot the enormous potential afforded by virtual worlds for situated and authentic learning, practising tasks with potentially serious consequences in the real world and for bringing geographically dispersed faculty and students together in the same space (Gee, 2007; Johnson and Levine, 2008). Though this potential has largely been realised, it generally isn’t without cost in terms of lack of institutional buy-in, steep learning curves for all participants, and lack of a sound theoretical framework to support learning activities (Campbell, 2009; Cheal, 2007; Kluge & Riley, 2008). This symposium will explore the affordances and issues associated with teaching and learning in virtual worlds, all the time considering the question: is it worth the effort

Transforming pre-service teacher curriculum: observation through a TPACK lens

This paper will discuss an international online collaborative learning experience through the lens of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework. The teacher knowledge required to effectively provide transformative learning experiences for 21st century learners in a digital world is complex, situated and changing. The discussion looks beyond the opportunity for knowledge development of content, pedagogy and technology as components of TPACK towards the interaction between those three components. Implications for practice are also discussed. In today’s technology infused classrooms it is within the realms of teacher educators, practising teaching and pre-service teachers explore and address effective practices using technology to enhance learning

Are digital natives a myth or reality?: Students’ use of technologies for learning

This paper outlines the findings of a study investigating the extent and nature of use of digital technologies by undergraduate students in Social Work and Engineering, in two British universities. The study involved a questionnaire survey of students (n=160) followed by in-depth interviews with students (n=8) and lecturers and support staff (n=8) in both institutions. Firstly, the findings suggest that students use a limited range of technologies for both learning and socialisation. For learning, mainly established ICTs are used- institutional VLE, Google and Wikipedia and mobile phones. Students make limited, recreational use of social technologies such as media sharing tools and social networking sites. Secondly, the findings point to a low level of use of and familiarity with collaborative knowledge creation tools, virtual worlds, personal web publishing, and other emergent social technologies. Thirdly, the study did not find evidence to support the claims regarding students adopting radically different patterns of knowledge creation and sharing suggested by some previous studies. The study shows that students’ attitudes to learning appear to be influenced by the approaches adopted by their lecturers. Far from demanding lecturers change their practice, students appear to conform to fairly traditional pedagogies, albeit with minor uses of technology tools that deliver content. Despite both groups clearly using a rather limited range of technologies for learning, the results point to some age differences, with younger, engineering students making somewhat more active, albeit limited, use of tools than the older ones. The outcomes suggest that although the calls for radical transformations in educational approaches may be legitimate it would be misleading to ground the arguments for such change solely in students’ shifting expectations and patterns of learning and technology use

Mobile reflections (MoRe) pilot, developing reflection within initial teacher training for students with dyslexia

The MoRe (Mobile Reflections) pilot was designed to explore whether the use of freely available Web 2.0 technology and mobile phones could assist dyslexic student teachers to develop reflective skills by capturing their reflections using audio within a shared online learning space

About using Mobile Reflections

a short guid

Making it Rich and Personal: crafting an institutional personal learning environment

Many of the communities interested in learning and teaching technologies within higher education now accept the view that a conception of personal learning environments provides a the most realistic and workable perspective of learners’ interactions with and use of technology. This view may not be reflected in the behaviour of those parts of a university which normally purchase and deploy technology infrastructure. These departments or services are slow to change because they are typically, and understandably, risk-averse; the more so, because the consequences of expensive decisions about infrastructure will stay with the organisation for many years. Furthermore across the broader (less technically or educationally informed) academic community, the awareness of and familiarity with technologies in support of learning may be varied. In this context, work to innovate the learning environment will require considerable team effort and collective commitment. This paper presents a case study account of institutional processes harnessed to establish a universal personal learning environment fit for the 21st century. The challenges encountered were consequential of our working definition of a learning environment, which went beyond simple implementation. In our experience the requirements became summarised as “its more than a system, it’s a mindset”. As well as deploying technology ‘fit for purpose’ we were seeking to create an environment that could play an integral and catalytic part in the university’s role of enabling transformative education. Our ambitions and aspirations were derived from evidence in the literature. We also drew on evidence of recent and current performance in the university; gauged by institutional benchmarking and an extensive student survey. The paper presents and analyses this qualitative and quantitative data. We provide an account and analysis of our progress to achieve change, the methods we used, problems encountered and the decisions we made on the way