#LTHEChat 138 Internationalisation in Higher Education – what does it mean and what can we do? with @JennyLewinJones

‘Internationalisation’ often features in university policy strategies.  Yet it is a slippery term, with a range of interpretations. We discussed ‘internationalisation’ on #LTHEchat back in 2015, but it is worth revisiting to discuss what it means and how it affects our practices now.

‘Internationalisation’ frequently refers narrowly to the strategic recruitment of international students, with financial benefits to universities through increasing numbers (Warwick and Moogan, 2013, p. 105). On the other hand, there are calls to broaden the understanding of ‘internationalisation’. A more holistic conception emphasises ‘internationalisation at home’ and the benefits for home students of studying alongside international students in an internationalised curriculum.

However, benefits of internationalisation do not happen automatically. Contact between home and international students does not necessarily lead to increased intercultural competence (Lantz-Deaton, 2017). Studies identify home students’ resistance to intercultural group work (Harrison, 2015), so whereas often the institutional emphasis is on ways to help international students assimilate and integrate, there may be a greater need to encourage home students to respond to opportunities. In fact, the division between international and home/domestic students has been questioned, with a call to consider them all together as heterogeneous populations (Jones, 2017, p. 934). Internationalisation often overlaps with issues around inclusion and inclusivity. Therefore a more optimistic view is that

“the diversity of the student body on university campuses provides a rich source of lived experience in cultural boundary-crossing that could be harnessed as a resource in promoting intercultural understanding and, in turn, developing graduates as global citizens” (Caruana, 2014, p. 86).

This is a more fundamental transformation of the study programme for all students than a bolt-on approach of rectifying deficits by providing additional support to just international students. The pedagogical choices made by staff in the classroom are key (Elliott and Reynolds, 2014, p. 318).

Leask and Carroll (2011, p. 657) call for the development of new approaches to motivate and reward intercultural interaction by all students, identifying the potential for intercultural communication. This #LTHEchat is a response to that call, with an opportunity to share experiences and ideas.

This also reflects the ‘HEA Framework for internationalising higher education’, available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/individuals/strategic-priorities/internationalising-higher-education. It includes these words:

“Everyone within HE can make a valuable contribution to the process of internationalisation, working in collaboration as an international academic community. Individuals bring a plurality of identities, cultures, languages and experiences that can enrich and enhance learning, teaching and research. Thus, responsibility for internationalising HE is shared among organisations, individuals and curriculum”.

Join in the discussion on Twitter, Wednesday 20th February, 8pm GMT, #LTHEchat.


Caruana, V. (2014) ‘Re-thinking Global Citizenship in Higher Education: from Cosmopolitanism and International Mobility to Cosmopolitanisation, Resilience and Resilient Thinking’, Higher Education Quarterly, 68(1), pp. 85–104. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12030.

Elliott, C. J. and Reynolds, M. (2014) ‘Participative pedagogies, group work and the international classroom: an account of students’ and tutors’ experiences’, Studies in Higher Education. Routledge, 39(2), pp. 307–320. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2012.709492.

Harrison, N. (2015) ‘Practice, problems and power in “internationalisation at home”: critical reflections on recent research evidence’, Teaching in Higher Education. Routledge, 20(4), pp. 412–430. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2015.1022147.

Jones, E. (2017) ‘Problematising and reimagining the notion of “international student experience”’, Studies in Higher Education. Routledge, 42(5), pp. 933–943. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1293880.

Lantz-Deaton, C. (2017) ‘Internationalisation and the development of students’ intercultural competence’, Teaching in Higher Education. Routledge, 22(5), pp. 532–550. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2016.1273209.

Leask, B. and Carroll, J. (2011) ‘Moving beyond “wishing and hoping”: internationalisation and student experiences of inclusion and engagement’, Higher Education Research & Development.  Routledge , 30(5), pp. 647–659. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2011.598454.

Warwick, P. and Moogan, Y. J. (2013) ‘A comparative study of perceptions of internationalisation strategies in UK universities’, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education.  Routledge , 43(1), pp. 102–123. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2013.746573.


Jenny Lewin-Jones

Jenny Lewin-Jones @JennyLewinJones is a long-standing university teacher and researcher, initially in Germany and then for 20+ years in the UK. She currently works as an Associate Lecturer on the BA English Language and Sociology courses at the University of Worcester, and is a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. Jenny is also a part-time EdD (professional doctorate) student at the University of Birmingham, researching the discourses of internationalisation in Higher Education in the UK. She tweets on language, linguistics, and education @JennyLewinJones, and runs the Sociology course Twitter account @sociologyworc.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEChat 137 How does technology support traditional study skills?

In the LTHEChat this week we would like to explore the role of the traditional student skills of note taking and critical reading. Software tools and mobile apps have been developed to allow rapid and easy access to multiple texts. Sophisticated search tools can compile a comprehensive set of resources. Lecture capture systems allow students to revisit difficult concepts. With these technologies so widely available, is note taking, and are critical reading skills, still key to student learning? And if so, how can we use the tools available to assist.

This week’s LTHEChat is lead by Sue Lee and Dr Lydia Arnold.

Image of Lydia Arnold


Dr Lydia Arnold @HarperEdDev is an Educational Developer and Principal lecturer at Harper Adams University. Lydia is a Principal Fellow of the HEA and a National teaching Fellow. She blogs at lydiaarnold.net

Image of Sue Lee


Sue Lee @suelee99 is the eLearning Manager at Staffordshire University. Sue is a Senior Fellow of the HEA and is based in Academic Development.



The Wakelet can be found here: http://wke.lt/w/s/BT7aw

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEChat 136 “I’m stuck! (But don’t help me…)”

New technologies come and go, energising those of us who are ‘early adopters’ of such technologies, while leaving those who are less enthusiastic about the latest gadget in its wake. These are people who are not ‘anti’ technology, or have what we used to call “barriers” to their technology use, but people who use technology for reasons other than being on top of the latest technology ‘fad’. My recent study involving two secondary schools in Australia found such people across the school community: teachers, parents, and even students. Not enamoured with technology, they used technology for efficiency and practical needs (typing up assignments for example), and were seldom using or exploring new technologies to explore new ways of teaching and learning. This chat will explore some of the ways people in higher education – lecturers and students –  get ‘stuck’ with a limited range of technologies; new pedagogies and old technologies; and ways we can entice them into further technological and pedagogical exploration.

JTThis week’s LTHEChat is lead by Dr Jacquie Tinkler. Jacquie is a Lecturer in educational technology at Charles Sturt University in Wagga Wagga, Australia. Her recent work explores the ways in which the various members of school communities feel about, and experience, the use of digital technologies for teaching and learning in their schools. Her work in higher education and educational technology involves the exploration of new technologies for teaching and learning, particularly in the online environment.

The link to the Wakelet is here: http://wke.lt/w/s/M3hSQ

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEchat 135 -Teaching problem-solving with @scottturneruon and @DrGaryHill1

This week we welcome visualisation wizard Scott Turner from the University of Northampton (UoN), and his colleague Gary Hill. Scott and Gary are going to get us thinking about how to teach problem solving.

Problem-solving and problem-based activities are, arguably, central to both Engineering and Computing, but they have an application across many subjects. This chat will consider how problem-solving skills are developed in various subjects, giving participants the opportunity to share experiences from different subjects and explore similarities and differences.

scottDr Scott Turner @scottturneruon is Principal Lecturer in Widening Participation in the subject area of Computing at the University of Northampton (UoN) and regular collaborator with Gary Hill on research into problem-solving within Computing. Scott is also responsible for leading on research for the Computing subject at UoN.


garyDr Gary Hill @DrGaryHill1 is the Subject Leader for Computing, Business Computing and Games at the UoN. Over the last twelve years he has published on problem-solving and project-based learning applied to computing and his PhD is within this area.



Here is a list of research outputs and activities

The link to the Wakelet

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEchat 134 – Oh yes! #BYOD4L is back co-hosting our first #LTHEchat of 2019 with @debbaff and @SFaulknerPandO

We are off to a flying start this year with the first tweetchat of the year run as a joint tweetchat with the folks at #BYOD4L Bring your own device for learning. #BYOD4L is a free open online 5 day course that anyone can join in to explore how mobile devices can be used in learning and teaching.

Facilitators from the last community edition of #BYOD4L in January 2018 would like our wonderful community to feedback on ideas for the next version of the event which will run in 2019.  This is a great opportunity to get involved in the planning and organisation and help to shape the next iteration of the event, we are looking for willing volunteers to help organise, facilitate and participate. Join Debbie Baff and  Suzanne Faulkner on Wednesday 16th January 2019 for a fun filled and fast tweetchat and get those ideas flowing … Warning there may be bitmojis and / or gifs!

Deb BaffDebbie is a Senior Academic Developer at Swansea University in Wales, UK. A keen advocate of open education and open educational practice and enthusiastic member of #LTHEchat, #SocMedHE #BYOD4L, #CreativeHE and #ALTC, Debbie is also a part time online PhD student at Lancaster University. Her blog can be found at https://debbaffled.wordpress.com/ and can be found on twitter @debbaff 


Suzanne Faulkner is an award winning teaching fellow in Prosthetics and Orthotics, within the department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow.
With 11 years teaching experience at the National Centre of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Suzanne is passionate about enhancing the student experience by focusing on improving student engagement. With an increasing international cohort of students, she has employed various techniques to enhance communication and engagement with all students. These include using Snapchat as a tutorial tool, using various cloud based student response systems, utilising social media in learning and teaching and playful learning. Suzanne is a facilitator qualified in the Lego Serious Play (LSP) methodology, she is currently undertaking a masters in advance academic studies where she is evaluating the use of LSP to enhance participation of non-native speakers of English in group work activities. She is also undertaking a diploma in digital management. Suzanne participates regulatory in the #LTHEchats, loves anything and everything to do with the to do with the amazing #SocMedHE community, and is a facilitator of #BYOD4L . . . . and probably uses Bitmoji’s too much! She can be found on Twitter as @SFaulknerPandO

The link to the Wakelet is here: http://wke.lt/w/s/lMB5F

Posted in guest | Tagged | Leave a comment

#LTHEchat 133 – Active Learning and Christmas Festivities

Active Learning and Disruptive Pedagogies

In this #LTHEChat, we would like to explore the disruptive potential of active learning.  

It is probably easier to define what active learning is not, than what it is. While a concise definition for active learning remains elusive, during our Active Learning course, we have bought into Kovbasyuk and Blessinger’s (2013) ‘vision of education’ as an ‘open meaning-making process’; the interaction between the teacherstudent and space at the core of active learning. This open process of negotiation inevitably and to some degree deliberately causes friction, even cognitive dissonance:  


O’Donoghue et al. [28] argue that that transformative learning constitutes situated processes of reflexive learning around tensions, discontinuities and risk in local contexts in multi-actor groups.” (Lotz-Sisitka et al, 2015, p.75) 

One of our course participants asked ‘Who are we disrupting, with our active learning strategies? Hence our second question: are active learning strategies actually disruptive, and who are they disrupting? The learners? The educator? The institution? We believe active learning can disrupt us as educators just as much as the learner. We are stepping back from what is expected; we create situations where outcomes are difficult to anticipate, and thus we are taking risks when using pedagogies that are more studentcentred.  

This is the last TweetChat of the year. So, our questions are not going to be purely serious and philosophical. We would like to explore where the magic happens. You know, the moments in teaching where you and your students are in flow’, where this negotiated meaning-making is happening and there is an environment of mutual trust and respect. Are these moments elusive? Why can we not just recreate these every day? Can we find the magic?  

What would you wish for? I [Nathalie] would love to have app developers or game designers at hand when planning active teaching. There are situations where gamification to convey a really difficult concept would have profound impact on students. Now in the physical classroom, it’s easy enough to bring in Lego™ or PlayDough or make up games—I have previously handsewn fabric fortunecookies! In a virtual learning environment with our distance learners, or when we want to encourage outside of classroom learning, digital games would have such an impact! That’s my wish anyway.  

My [Vicki’s] wish is already being granted – I think we are at a point where the learners, teachers, institutionsector and workplace are ready for active learning. Rather than being the signature of early adopters, active learning is rapidly becoming a pattern for the design of higher education, from our learning activities to teaching sessions to our learning spaces, whether online or face-to-face. There is still a lot of progress to be made though, so we would like to know what your Christmas wish for active learning is.  

Wishing everyone a happy festive season!


Dr Nathalie Sheridan @UofGLEADS undertook her first degree @tudresden_dein  Erziehungswissenschaften, and has worked in culture and museums education throughout her studies. Hence her interest in active pedagogies and integrating the students’ environment into the curriculum.

Dr Vicki Dale is a Senior Academic and Digital Development Adviser at @UofGlasgow with specific interests in blended and online learning and evaluating the learner experience of teaching methods that encourage students’ self-regulated learning.

Lotz-Sisitka, H., Wals, A. E., Kronlid, D., & McGarry, D. (2015). Transformative, transgressive social learning: Rethinking higher education pedagogy in times of systemic global dysfunction. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability16, 73-80. https://arjenwals.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/transgressivesociallearning.pdf  

 Kovbasyuk, O. and P. Blessinger (2013). Meaning-centered education: International perspectives and explorations in higher education, Routledge.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEchat no 132 “Focus On: Graduate Skills – where are we now, and where are we going next?” with QAA Scotland Wednesday 5 December 2018 #QAAFocusOn

Wednesday 5 December 2018


With apprenticeships, work-based learning, and skills for work becoming increasingly important areas of development and activity across the higher education sector globally, QAA Scotland’s new ‘Focus On’ project examining Graduate Skills is relevant and timely.

We consulted with Scottish higher education institutions and students’ associations to identify the priority areas for development in this area. The themes that emerged from this consultation include:

  • Effective ways of embedding skills inside (and outside) the curriculum.
  • Digital skills for graduates from all disciplines.
  • Equality and diversity in skills provision and opportunities.
  • Skills for working in a global society.

These themes have informed the questions we are asking in this #LTHEchat.

Our project aims to:

  • Share effective practice, key messages and analysis of existing information on graduate attributes, skills and employability.
  • Explore student views – what approaches to skills development work well? How can we improve? What do students want more of?
  • Work with graduates and employers – what do graduates and employers tell us that we can do better in HE to support students for life after University, and how do we work most effectively with employers to embed effective skills development in the curriculum?
  • Inform and influence policy to better meet our future challenges and our readiness as a sector to take action.

We hope this tweetchat will allow us to engage a wider audience in debate around these issues and enhance our understanding of current thought and practice.

You can keep up to date with the project by visiting our website: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/scotland/focus-on/graduate-skills and by subscribing to our Focus On mailing list by contacting arcadmin@qaa.ac.uk). We would be happy to hear from you.


Link to the wakelet: https://wakelet.com/wake/3ec1be64-aecf-4477-b92e-59d950d0222e


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEchat no 131 What role does news have in HE? @margymaclibrary

Wednesday 21 November 2018

Margy MacMillan, Canada. @margymaclibrary

There is a persistent narrative that stigmatizes students in higher education as disengaged from the the ‘real world’, uninterested in the news, unaware of current events. Recent research, including the News Study by Project Information Literacy (http://www.projectinfolit.org/news_study.html) however paints quite a different picture. For many students, engaging with the news takes time and effort to sift through facts, compare interpretations across sources, and share information as a form of social capital in discussions with their peers, in classroom activities, and in social media forums.

As a student, I might have heard a newscast on the radio in the morning, read a newspaper at lunch, and caught some of the evening news in passing (it was the dark ages, there was one TV in the residence hall of some 300 students), all carefully controlled, brief encounters with news that was curated by professional journalists and organizations I trusted. Students today are awash in news served to them 24/7 by unseen algorithms in their social media feeds, and a plethora of other digital sources, the trivial is mixed with the crucial, traditional reporting from the BBC or Al-Jazeera appears alongside on-the-scene citizen journalism, viewpoints are filtered to reinforce biases and drive consumption, and all the while, leaders, media reports, and perhaps even professors, say the media is not to be trusted.

It’s no wonder many students feel overwhelmed. The good news, as our study found, is that many students value news enough to persist in finding their way through it, balancing accounts, views, and interpretations. However, they were more likely to be actively engaged in this work for academic assignments, and often much more passive consumers when it came to news in their personal lives.

One of the most interesting study findings is that 70% of our 5844 respondents encountered news through discussions in the classroom. Professors’ recommendations were a key source of news for academic work (68%) and in their personal lives (38%). However there was a wide range of experiences with news, and field of study was a factor – Humanities students were far more likely to see news integrated in their classrooms than students in the Sciences.

So – if we believe it’s important for students to develop effective habits in using news, and if we understand that the classrooms are an important place for engaging with news… what can we do as instructors to support students’ engagement with news for both academic and personal purposes?

Margy MacMillan

Margy is a retired librarian and Professor Emerita of Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. She is currently a Senior Researcher with Project Information Literacy, a research institute that conducts ongoing, national studies on what it is like being a student in the digital age. She has recently worked on a major study investigating how students engage with news. Fascinated by the results, she is intrigued by their implications for higher education.

Material from the study is here
Alison J. Head, John Wihbey, P. Takis Metaxas, Margy MacMillan, and Dan Cohen, “How Students Engage with News: Five Takeaways for Educators, Journalists, and Librarians,” Project Information Literacy Research Institute. (October 16, 2018). http://www.projectinfolit.org/news_study.html

More news about news….

Samantha Bradshaw & Philip N. Howard, “Challenging Truth and Trust: A Global Inventory of Organized Social Media Manipulation.” Working Paper 2018.1. Oxford, UK: Project on Computational Propaganda. (August 9, 2018). https://comprop.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/cybertroops2018/

Emily Van Duyn & Jessica Collier, “Why We Really Need to Stop Saying Fake News.” (August 23, 2018).


Pangiotis Metaxas. “Technology, Propaganda, and the Limits of Human Intellect.” https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.09541 (June 6, 2018)

Michael Rosenwald. “Making Media Literacy Great Again.” (Fall 2017).

https://www.cjr.org/special_report/media-literacy-trump-fake-news.php/ Useful


Resources for working with students and news:

Caulfield, Mike. “Web Literacy for Student Fact-Checkers.” (2017). https://webliteracy.pressbooks.com/ – a brief book that walks through very practical evaluation strategies.


Beccy Dresden. “Educating students for media literacy.”(February 27, 2018).  http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/blog/?p=2594 – a collection of resources and ideas for teaching from DigPedLab 2017.

Link to the wakelet: https://wakelet.com/wake/f10bf181-4a87-45e6-90f1-53323304a047

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEchat 130 One solution to online learning? think again.

Wednesday 14 November 2018

David Smith, Australia @djs2206

With the miniaturisation of computing and the availability of technologies much has been anticipated about the affordances that technology would bring to daily and corporate living, conquering aspects such as distance and providing opportunity irrespective of class. Education was part of that encompassing view, particularly in extending its outreach but also in changing the teaching landscape promising an approach that attended to the needs of the student, personalising education that up till this point was the prerogative of in class/on campus scenarios.

The launch of the online environment bypassed the various challenges of the postal service by transferring the practice of disseminating course booklets in paper form to an electronic delivery, incorporating a more immediate human transaction with a lecturer or tutor. Interaction between teacher and student is part of that pedagogical process that deepens the co-investment in education between the learner and the institution, develops a trust relationship in the community of learning practice and inspires a depth of thinking to enhance the learning process. Yet the university online delivery ranges from the pdf version of those same course notes to a formula driven electronic learning platform with little space for innovation.

It is understood that to ensure a quality online teaching experience, universities need to assure that there is a teaching delivery system that can be utilised by lecturers and students alike. However, the problem develops where the university promising quality assurance in its online teaching manufactures a formula driven pedagogy that might address elements such as student engagement, student interaction and teacher presence but does institute a level of sameness in all teaching deliveries.

There is I suggest a fundamental flaw in the approach to the pedagogy of online teaching which is focusing on making the online experience the same as an on-campus class rather than the engagement of the student in the learning process. This on-campus thinking can also distract lecturers, students and the wider community from fully embracing the greater potential of the online platform.  Continuing on the ideas raised by Kebritchi et al., in examining the content and the structure of its delivery, online educational content developers and lecturers should consider creating a new environment for their learners rather than trying to mimic a face to face classroom. These environments could expand on the forums, blogs and videos currently fostered by learning management systems to include but not be limited to technologies such as artificial intelligence, virtual reality and social media. Whilst incorporating such technologies are not without challenges the learning experience would surely be advantaged where learners are able to fully immerse themselves in a learning experience.

Kebritchi, M., Lipschuetz, A., & Santiague, L. (2017). Issues and challenges for teaching successful online courses in higher education: A literature review. Journal of Educational Technology Systems46(1), 4-29.

Associate Professor David Smith

Associate Professor David Smith is a learning strategist with a PhD in the field of eLearning from Newcastle University in Australia. He has developed a broad expertise in education through his work in schools and universities.

David consults on online course development and teaching in the Higher Learning sector in the United Kingdom and Western Europe and is a recognised expert in online learning for the open education network. David’s current role is Head of the School of Education at Charles Sturt University which is responsible for on campus and online delivery of subjects in initial teacher and postgraduate degrees.

David is currently investigating two elements of online learning, learning design and online assessment. In online learning design David has developed a different approach to learning pedagogy called the ‘Confluence of Learning (COL)’. David has also developed a mobile app called TfOIL (Technology for Online Interactive Learning) which assists lecturers to select appropriate technology. TfOIL is currently the subject of presentations and publications and is being used in several overseas universities. David is also researching the use of online visualization software and how that could be used to enhance the quality of online learning.

Link to the wakelet: https://wakelet.com/wake/3bbac7c2-0c86-48c6-a789-c93ae9eb2d20

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

#LTHEchat no 129 The battle between old and new: Written feedback vs. screencast feedback 7 November 2018

7 November 2018

Mr Damian Keil and Dr David Wright

Assessment feedback in higher education is usually provided through ‘written’ methods. Despite the widespread use of ‘written’ feedback, students frequently report dissatisfaction with the quality of their assessment feedback in annual surveys (Carless, 2006). In the United Kingdom, this frustration with assessment feedback is reflected in National Student Survey (NSS) results where, across the higher education sector, the Assessment and Feedback category was rated consistently lowest in terms of student satisfaction between 2006-2016 (HEFCE 2011; 2016). Reasons for low satisfaction levels with assessment feedback practices have been reported by Chanock (2000) and Weaver (2006) to be related to student perceptions of vague written feedback, which is often difficult to understand, and does not provide specific guidance on how students can improve their work in future. As such, it has been argued that providing feedback in the form of ‘written’ comments is ineffective and no longer appropriate (Carless et al. 2011; Lunt and Curran 2010).

In recent years, attempts have been made to improve upon written feedback methods by using both audio- and video-based feedback. For example, Gould and Day (2013) reported that students valued audio feedback and perceived it as being more detailed, more personal, and more supportive than the ‘written’ comments that they had traditionally received.

Moving on from audio feedback, screencasting allows the tutor to display the assessment submission on screen, highlight specific sections, and provide a verbal commentary (Thompson and Lee 2012). This method appears to offer several benefits over audio-only feedback. First, due to the visual nature of a screencast, the student is forced to visually review their assessment submission whilst listening to the points raised by the marker (Hope, 2011). Second, the visual element to the feedback allows for richer information to be conveyed by the marker than is possible with audio or ‘written’ methods (Cann, 2007), as key points can be highlighted and emphasised, and therefore contextualised by the marker (Crook et al., 2012). Third, Chalmers et al. (2014) found that staff members thought audio feedback was limited as it did not allow exemplar changes to a script to be made. Screencast methods solve this issue as changes to the script can be made if required. Despite these advantages in more advanced technological ways of providing feedback, ‘written’ comments are still the most widely used method of delivering assessment feedback in higher education settings.

A few years ago, we adopted this method and have never looked back. Students report a strong preference for video-based screencast feedback, which is perceived to be more detailed, more personal, easier to understand and offers more guidance on improvement. From a staff perspective, it takes no longer, is more naturalistic when discussing work and provides greater opportunities for explanation without sacrificing time. To us, it seems like a no-brainer…


David Wright is a Senior Lecturer in Exercise and Sport Science at Manchester Metropolitan University and a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. David teaches content related to sport psychology, motor control and research methods across a variety of degree programmes related to sport science. David attempts to improve student satisfaction and achievement by integrating technology into his teaching. For example, over the past five years, David has delivered his assessment feedback via screencast methods, implemented flipped classroom methods on his units, integrated online quizzes into his lectures and engaged with problem-based learning teaching formats. In addition to his teaching, David is also an active researcher. His PhD investigated changes in cortical activity that are associated with motor skill learning. His current research interests focus on exploring the cortical and behavioural processes involved in action observation and motor imagery interventions and their use for motor (re)learning.


image1Mr Damian KeilDW MMU Profile Picture Dr David Wright

Link to the wakelet: https://wakelet.com/wake/155ab4c6-c3fd-4d4f-9c35-b4cde56eb5b3


Carless, D. (2006) ‘Differing Perceptions in the Feedback Process.’ Studies in Higher Education,31, pp. 219-233.

Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M. and Lam, J. (2011) ‘Developing sustainable feedback practices.’ Studies in higher Education36(4), pp.395-407.

Chalmers, C., MacCallum, J., Mowat, E. and Fulton, N. (2014) ‘Audio feedback: richer language but no measurable impact on student performance.’ Practitioner Research in Higher Education8(1), pp.64-73.

Chanock, K. (2000) ‘Comments on Essays: Do Students Understand What Tutors Write?’ Teaching in Higher Education,5, 95-105.

Crook, A., Mauchline, A., Maw, S., Lawson, C., Drinkwater, R., Lundqvist, K., Orsmond, P., Gomez, S. and Park, J. (2012) ‘The use of video technology for providing feedback to students: Can it enhance the feedback experience for staff and students?’ Computers & Education, 58(1), pp.386-396.

Gould, J. and Day, P. (2013) ‘Hearing you loud and clear: student perspectives of audio feedback in higher education.’ Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education38(5), pp.554-566.

Higher Education Funding Council for England. 2011. “National Student Survey: Findings and Trends 2006 to 2010.” Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/2011/201111/11_11.pdf

Higher Education Funding Council for England. “National Student Survey” Retrieved from http://www.hefce.ac.uk/lt/nss/results/

Hope, S.A. (2011) ‘Making movies: the next big thing in feedback?’ Bioscience Education18(1), pp.1-14.

Lunt, T., and Curran, J. (2010) ‘’Are you Listening Please?’ The Advantages of Electronic Audio Feedback Compared to Written Feedback.’ Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,35, 759-769.

Weaver, M. R. (2006) ‘Do Students Value Feedback? Student Perceptions of Tutors’ Written Responses.’ Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education31, 379-394.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment