#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

#LTHEchat no 129 Using a Coaching Approach in Learning and Teaching


We are living in turbulent times in Higher Education (HE) with ever increasing reported levels of mental health issues in both students and staff (Grove, 2018; Niblock, 2018; Persson, 2017; Weale, 2018). When we add in the drive to create flexible, student-led learning environments, we often find ourselves in a position of trying to empower learners who are not ready or able to take on responsibility for their learning. I’m sure we can also all agree that effective facilitation of a student-led learning environment requires a completely different skillset than historically favoured didactic teaching methods which is eluded to but not fully explored in the UK Professional Standards Framework (The Higher Education Academy, Guild HE, & Universities UK, 2011).

Given this landscape, we would like to open the debate on whether coaching techniques and approaches could help us to foster more self-aware learners who take responsibility for action in their learning paths.Whitmore (2009) defines coaching as “unlocking people’s potential to maximize their own performance”which surely resonates with us as educators. Coaching has been shown to positively impact psychological factors such as reducing stress and improving wellbeing and resilience (Grover & Furnham, 2016) and increases self-efficacy, performance and satisfaction (Jarvis, 2008). Whilst these are outcomes from more formal coaching practice, wouldn’t it be great if we could enable these outcomes in our teaching too?

There have been numerous studies into coaching services for students (Bettinger & Baker, 2014)and peer coaching (Moore, Westwater-Wood, & Kerry, 2016)which have shown increases in attainment, retention and satisfaction. However there are few, studies which explore coaching as an approach to learning and teaching in HE.

We can draw many parallels between the skills needed for effective coaching and education including being fully ‘present’ and attuned to learners/coachees needs, using open questions, balancing challenge with support and being reflective practitioners. Use of silence is a key skill in coaching (Kimsey-House, Kimsey-House, Sandahl, & Whitworth, 2011)and so the similarities between coaching and education continue(Lees, 2013; Schultz, 2012). In fact, the spectrum of coaching skills (Downey, 2015) maps very well to the facilitation skills documented by Bens (2017)and the effective teaching skills discussed by Scales (2013).

So, does this mean we could we improve our abilities as facilitators of learning and create more independent graduates by using a coaching approach to learning and teaching? Join us for an evening of lively debate and of course plenty of gifs! (https://giphy.com/gifs/foxadhd-cute-dog-fox-mP94uHyKvY1nq)

Link to the wakelet: https://wakelet.com/wake/6a2ef7bc-375e-4878-bae4-bf778ddaea68


Bens, I. (2017). Facilitating with ease! : core skills for facilitators, team leaders and members, managers, consultants, and trainers(Fourth edi). Hoboken, New Jersey : John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bettinger, E. P., & Baker, R. B. (2014). The Effects of Student Coaching. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(1), 3–19.

Downey, M. (2015). Effective Modern Coaching: The Principles and Art of Successful Business Coaching. LID Publishing.

Grove, J. (2018, July 6). Half of UK academics ‘suffer stress-linked mental health problems.’ Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/half-uk-academics-suffer-stress-linked-mental-health-problems

Kimsey-House, H., Kimsey-House, K., Sandahl, P., & Whitworth, L. (2011). Co-Active Coaching: Changing Business, Transforming Lives. Quercus.

Lees, H. (2013, August 22). Silence as a pedagogical tool. Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/comment/opinion/silence-as-a-pedagogical-tool/2006621.article

Moore, C., Westwater-Wood, S., & Kerry, R. (2016). Academic performance and perception of learning following a peer coaching teaching and assessment strategy. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(1), 121–130.

Niblock, S. (2018, July 5). Without investment, student mental health will only get worse. Times Higher Education (THE). Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/without-investment-student-mental-health-will-only-get-worse

Persson, R. S. (2017). Distress or satisfaction? : talent management in higher education worldwide. The International Centre for Innovation in Education (ICIE). Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1121027&dswid=9522

Scales, P. (2013). Teaching in the lifelong learning sector. (K. Briddon & L. Senior, Eds.) (2nd ed.). Maidenhead : Maidenhead .

Schultz, K. (2012). The Role of Silence in Teaching and Learning. Educational Horizons, 91(2), 22–25.

The Higher Education Academy, Guild HE, & Universities UK. (2011). The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/ukpsf

Weale, S. (2018, June 28). Student mental health must be top priority – universities minister. The Guardian (Education). Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/jun/28/student-mental-health-must-be-top-priority-universities-minister


About #coachingHE

We are a vibrant community of professionals who have an interest in coaching in Higher Education. Our community brings together those with academic, professional services or independent roles to stimulate discussion, share practice, build connections, develop our skills and have fun!

#coachingHE Organising Committee

#CoachingHE is also supported by champions who help us disseminate the initiative in their institutions and beyond. Find out more and get involved at http://sdf.ac.uk/coachinghe

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

#LTHEchat no. 128 Virtual Exchanges Wednesday 17 October 2018 with Naomi Wahls

macbook pro

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

Naomi Wahls is a First year Seminar instructor at the University of Colorado Denver for Fall 2018, teaching Global Competence through Intercultural Learning. She is a PhD Candidate at Open Universiteit, Netherlands researching Intercultural Collaborative Open Learning. She completed her Masters in Information and Learning Technologies and a second Masters of Spanish at UC Denver. She’s was a volunteer mentor for UNESCO Open Education for a Better World with a project in Uzbekistan in 2018 and is a GO-GN member and Open Education SIG committee member.

Naomi’s research involves the intercultural learning that takes place within virtual exchanges using open environments or OER.

Topic wise, Naomi Wahls focuses on virtual exchanges and how they can be used in virtual mobility to provide credit for students in other countries and also how open educational resources can be used within virtual exchanges as materials that instructors can utilize. It might be easier to either focus on the virtual mobility side or the use of OER in virtual exchanges as those are generally 2 different audiences.


Link to the wakelet: https://wakelet.com/wake/e299e858-4f28-4351-9263-1d0bc4c493ecpicture profile

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

“Emotions and needs in learning and teaching in HE” #LTHEchat 10 Oct 2018


On Wednesday 10 October 2018, Dr Gerasimos Chatzidamianos aims to trigger an open dialogue/debate that focuses on the emotions and needs of both academics and students.

There has been a lot of work on the effects of emotion on learning. This has historically been linked to emotional intelligence driven by Goleman’s (1995) seminal work. In parallel with the emotional intelligence literature, however, emotions have been found to affect learning in both positive and negative ways. We know, for instance, that positive emotional states such as feeling secure, happy, and excited about the area of study leads to better academic performance (Boekaerts, 1993; Oatley & Nundy, 1996). Equally, heightened emotions, such as being overly excited or enthusiastic might result in carelessness and emotional states such as anger, anxiety, and sadness might result in a reduction to student’s ability to focus (Darling-Hammond et al., n.d.). At their more extreme manifestations, such as when students experience poor mental health, negative emotions could present as academic stress and burn-out; with both being associated with impaired academic achievement (Andrews & Wilding, 2004; Keyes et al., 2012; Vaez & Laflamme, 2008). Interventions to support students emotionally exist with promising results (Winzer, Lindberg, Guldbrandsson, & Sidorchuk, 2018). There has also been a plethora of work on the student needs; during their first year of study (Stagg & Kimmins, 2014), during “times of systemic dysfunction” (Tassone, O’Mahony, McKenna, Eppink, & Wals, 2018), when they join HE underprepared (Bettinger & Long, 2009), or as international students (Ecochard & Fotheringham, 2017) to name just a few.

BUT… ‘what about us’?

What about the emotions of academics in Higher Education (HE)? Is there any room for them? Are they ‘allowed’? Are we aware of them? Are we aware of how these could affect our performance? Could/should we communication these with our line manager and/or our students? Also, what about our needs? As with our emotions, are we able to identify them and communicate them effectively? How can these be met? What do Universities do to support academics to that effect? What self-care strategies do we implement to support ourselves? Most importantly, how could emotions and needs of both students and academics be addressed in HE? This is not about ‘us’ and ‘them’ or whose emotions and needs come first. This is about what kind of synergies are required that would address both.

This LTHEchat aims to trigger an open dialogue/debate that focuses on the emotions and needs of both academics and students with experiences, opinions, and views being welcome from all of ‘us’ as equal partners in learning and teaching.


Andrews, B., & Wilding, J. M. (2004). The relation of depression and anxiety to life-stress and achievement in students. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 509–521. http://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369802

Bettinger, E. P., & Long, B. T. (2009). Addressing the Needs of Underprepared Students in Higher Education. Journal of Human Resources, 44(3), 736–771.

Boekaerts, M. (1993). Being Concerned With Well-Being and With Learning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 149–167. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_4

Darling-Hammond, L., Orcutt, S., Strobel, K., Kirsch, E., Lit, I., & Martin, D. (n.d.). Feelings Count: Emotions and Learning Developed. In The Learning Classroom: Session 5. Stanford University School of Education. Retrieved from http://www.learner.org/courses/learningclassroom/support/05_emotions_learning.pdf

Ecochard, S., & Fotheringham, J. (2017). International Students’ Unique Challenges – Why Understanding International Transitions to Higher Education Matters. Journal of Perspectives in Applied Academic Practice, 5(2), 100–108. http://doi.org/10.14297/jpaap.v5i2.261

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence. New York, N.Y.: Bantam Books, Inc.

Keyes, C. L. M., Eisenberg, D., Perry, G. S., Dube, S. R., Kroenke, K., & Dhingra, S. S. (2012). The Relationship of Level of Positive Mental Health With Current Mental Disorders in Predicting Suicidal Behavior and Academic Impairment in College Students. Journal of American College Health, 60(2), 126–133. http://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2011.608393

Oatley, K., & Nundy, S. (1996). Rethinking the role of emotions in education. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development: New models of learning, teaching and schooling (pp. 257–274). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Stagg, A., & Kimmins, L. (2014). First Year in Higher Education (FYHE) and the Coursework Post-Graduate Student. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 40(2), 142–151. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2014.02.005

Tassone, V. C., O’Mahony, C., McKenna, E., Eppink, H. J., & Wals, A. E. J. (2018). (Re-)designing higher education curricula in times of systemic dysfunction: a responsible research and innovation perspective. Higher Education, 76(2), 337–352. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0211-4

Vaez, M., & Laflamme, L. (2008). Experienced stress, psychological symptoms, self-rated health and academic achievement: A longitudinal study of Swedish university students. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 36(2), 183–196. http://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.2.183

Winzer, R., Lindberg, L., Guldbrandsson, K., & Sidorchuk, A. (2018). Effects of mental health interventions for students in higher education are sustainable over time: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PeerJ, 6, e4598. http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4598

my face small

Dr Gerasimos Chatzidamianos, FHEA, CPsychol, is an Experimental Psycholinguist who completed his M.Phil. and Ph.D. research at the Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, U.K. exploring certain psycholinguistic manifestations of schizophrenia in deaf adults. He is also qualified to practice Psychology in Greece (Department of Psychology, University of Athens, Greece), and a Qualified Teacher in Special Education. He is currently a Senior Lecturer in Psychology at MMU.

A passionate researcher on mental health and deafness, psycholinguistics, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and clinical comunication, Gerasimos has extensive expertise on research ethics and the use of social media in health research. A member of the Faculty of Health, Psychology and Social Care Research Ethics and Governance Committee, Gerasimos is the MMU Psychology Department ethics lead. He is currently supervising 3 PhD candidates, 1 Doctorate in Clinical Psychology trainee and many MSc students. In 2018, he has been shortlisted for the Best Postgraduate Supervisor Award 2018.

Link to the wakelet:






Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Leading successful courses and programmes #lthechat 3 Oct 2018

Dr Sam Ellis, SFHEA & Dr. Jenny Lawrence, PFHEA, AFSEDA


The programme leader or director role is a complex and important one, crucial to higher education institutions core business: the delivery of under- and post-graduate programmes of study.

As student experience data feeds into the metrics that inform TEF and other university rankings university senior management teams are increasingly looking to programme leaders to take more responsibility for the curriculum and learning and teaching practice on the programmes they lead. However, the role of programme leadership is relatively new; within an institution or faculty there is often lack of clarity regarding remit; many programme leaders are responsible for multiple programmes; and support for those practicing varies enormously across the sector.

The key responsibilities of the programme leader include academic leadership – that is creating a unified and coherent academic programme made up of an (often inherited) collection of modules, and the leadership of academics – supporting peers in delivering effective learning and teaching across the programme. Attempting to do this without clear authority or managerial power can be demanding.

This #LTHEchat will be based on our co-edited work ‘Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership’ (Lawrence and Ellis, 2018), a collection of articles and case studies exploring the programme leader role and interventions and practices that have supported successful programme leadership.

Evidence suggests the most effective and preferred developmental exercise is, for the programme leaders, peer-to-peer conversation (Senior 2018; Moore, 2018). We invite programme leaders, directors and convenors and all those invested in the role – aspiring programme leaders, educational developers, deans and HR managers, to share their collective wisdom as we explore how you address some of the programme leaders key challenges.


Lawrence, J. and Ellis, S (2018) Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership. London: Staff and Educational Development Association.

Moore, S. (2018) Beyond Isolation: Exploring the relationality and collegiality of the programme leader role. Lawrence, J. and Ellis, S (2018) Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership. London: Staff and Educational Development Association.

Senior, R. (2018) The shape of programme leadership in the contemporary university. Lawrence, J. and Ellis, S (2018) Supporting Programme Leaders and Programme Leadership. London: Staff and Educational Development Association.


Dr. Jenny Lawrence, PFHEA, AFSEDA is Teaching Enhancement Advisor at the University of Hull @jennywahwah

Dr Sam Ellis, SFHEA is Senior Lecturer in Academic Development at Glasgow Caledonian University @xSamEllis

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

@AdvanceHE collaborative #LTHEchat Wednesday 26th September 2018

DoCA0lrXcAIaUaCBrave New World: How are we preparing the Next -Generation of learners for the Fourth Industrial Revolution?

Kay Hack, Academic Lead STEM

20.00 UK time, Wednesday 26th September 2018

 A tsunami of new technologies is set to transform the workplace, rapid developments in artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, 3D printing, virtual reality, nanotechnology and the Internet of Things are driving ‘Industry 4.0’ or the ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution’ (4IR). Previous industrial revolutions have seen mass unemployment, as workers strove to upskill or reskill to find a place in the new workforce. Over the last two decades we have seen the gradual erosion of jobs that could be automated or replaced by algorithmic based computing. Any job that could be described by a simple set of rules, ‘if this, then that’ , could be made  redundant. Predictions of job losses in this Fourth Industrial Revolution vary widely, and by sector and by country, but we are already seeing the impact on manufacturing and retail sectors. The machine learning methods at the heart of AI mean that we do not have to specify all of the rules in advance, the software can learn in the same way that humans do, through trial and error; but unlike humans, computers remember their mistakes! Jobs based on pattern recognition: pathology, radiology, accountancy, financial services, legal advice….. are susceptible to being replaced by AI. As AI becomes more sophisticated so will the cognitive tasks it can replace. The skills required for workers to survive and thrive in Industry 4.0, will be based on uniquely human qualities (emotional intelligence,  compassion and empathy) and the creativity and metacognitive skills that will allow us to innovate and solve the complex inter-disciplinary problems and global challenges that we face. New jobs will be created; as well as the data scientists and machine learning experts, we may need more psychologists to help employees cope with working alongside robots, sociologists to identify the biases in the datasets on which neural networks are being trained, philosophers to ensure autonomous cars make ethical decisions.

The Next Generation of students may only spend a few years, if any, using the content knowledge acquired during their degree programme. They will be expected to communicate with colleagues and clients, ethically and professionally across platforms, disciplines, cultures, national boundaries and cyber-physical interfaces. They will have multiple roles and job titles that currently do not exist, work simultaneously for multiple organisations, in a working life that could span 60 years, they will work from home, in the cloud and alongside robots, making decisions based on data drawn from a wide variety of sources.

These changes will not only impact upon students, but also upon education providers. The need to regularly upskill and reskill the workforce will require agile and responsive education and training systems. So how are we preparing our students and ourselves for this brave new world?

In this weeks combined LTHE and Advance HE tweetchat, we will be exploring the challenges facing Higher Education in the Fourth Industrial Revolution and discussing the pedagogical approaches that will foster the cognitive flexibility, complex problem solving skills, entrepreneurialism and creativity required for Industry 4.0.

These issues will also be examined in more detail at the Advance HE STEM conference, where we are inviting peer-led workshops, papers and posters to explore the following propositions:

Proposition 1: Interdisciplinary approaches to learning and teaching in STEM are necessary to develop the graduate attributes demanded by students, employers and society.

Proposition 2: Innovative approaches to using technology and data are required for effective STEM teaching and to prepare students for success in Industry 4.0.

Proposition 3: Technological innovation will continue to drive the automation and globalisation of professional work: STEM students and academics need to adopt resilient and flexible approaches to learning and teaching to respond to a rapidly changing work place.

Proposition 4: Following years of work on addressing equality, diversity and inclusion issues across STEM disciplines, progress is still slow. Institutions, faculties and departments need to develop innovative and sustainable approaches to achieve significant impact and realise change.

Proposition 5: Delivering the next generation of HE in STEM disciplines requires strong individual and team leadership, developing the next generation of leaders is critical to this success.

Kay Hack, Academic Lead STEM

My current role includes developing, managing and promoting excellence in teaching and learning, both generally and within STEM disciplines. I deliver a range of services to the HE sector, including supporting strategic leadership and change in HEIs and building and maintaining strong relationships with the STEM community, PSRBs, government and other organisations and individuals.

Link to the wakelet: https://wakelet.com/wake/84d59f0c-3c84-4d09-94c9-89df7de82be8


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Technology Facilitation in HE institutions #LTHEchat 19 September 2018

Wednesday,19 September 2018 at 20.00 UK time zone

Next week’s #LTHEchat topic is Technology Facilitation. Nikos Mouratoglou has been involved in a Facilitation Program for Virtual Exchange in HE institutions. Coming to a deeper understanding of breadth and depth of Facilitation as a disciplined practice fascinated  Nikos and he would like to explore it with the @LTHEchat community.

According to the Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA) facilitation is “the act of making something easier. In group work, the facilitator works with a group of people to help them have a conversation, come to agreement, or plan for the future. In general, the facilitator acts as a trusted and neutral outside voice, making decisions about the process the group goes through but allowing the group to focus on and control the content of the discussion. The facilitator is a gentle guide, making it easier for the group to have that discussion.”

Nikos Mouratoglou wishes to explore Facilitation as a skill in and of itself, that students may learn and develop and take with them to their graduate futures. Nikos wonders how  we -as educators and individuals- practice and understand Facilitation.

If you wish to know more about facilitation, you can take a look at the Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA): https://www.ica-uk.org.uk/what-is-facilitation

nikosNikos Mouratoglou is a PhD student in the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. He is a Guest Lecturer in four universities: Aristotle University, University of Macedonia, University of the Aegean and the National Kapodistrian University of Athens. His research interests focus on Information Communication Technologies, Literacy and Cognitive Psychology. He is also engaged in the fields of Educational Robotics, Adult Education and Career Counseling, in which he completed two master degrees. Nikos has advanced research, teaching and professional experience in the public and private sector, while at the same time he is participating in various projects related to social sciences.

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/nikosmouratog/

Twitter: https://twitter.com/NikosMour_

People Communicating - Speech Bubbles

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Special #altc edition of #LTHEchat 11th September 2018

Tuesday 11th September 2018, 8-9 pm

#LTHEchat is back for the 2018/19 academic year, opening with a collaboration with the Annual Conference of the Association for Learning Technology #altc, please join us at 8pm on Tuesday 11th September.

The ALT’s 25th Annual Conference programme brings together different critical perspectives in Learning Technology from across the community that will examine the challenges ahead and question the shape of things to come. ALT is putting its values into practice and Members at the heart of the conference, so in this spirit the event will be chaired collaboratively by the Trustees of ALT, led by Sheila MacNeill and Martin Weller.

We are opening up the #altc #LTHEchat to include questions from Co-Chairs, presenters and organisers of the event focused around the conference themes:

-participation through Learning Technology;

-collaboration for Learning Technology;

-critical perspectives in Learning Technology;

-openness and Learning Technology.

In our #altc #LTHEchat we’ll be asking you to share your key moments from the history of Learning Technology – ideas that inform your own critical perspectives in Learning Technology and to look ahead to the biggest challenges we face at the start of this academic year and how we can make the best use of technology for the benefit of staff and students.

You can engage with conference beyond our collaborative #LTHEchat:

1. Participate online

The conference runs 11-13 September and you participate online or via the #altc hashtag.

2. Remote viewing of streamed sessions

A number of #altc sessions are streamed live. Streamed sessions are marked on the Programme with a YouTube icon, this includes keynote speakers. To view one of these live streamed sessions, open the session details page. Each live streamed session page includes an embedded YouTube player. When the session is due to start, click on the play button to see the stream. If you are a Member of ALT, you can use the Log In link on this site to follow sessions and post updates.

3. Virtually Connecting
We also welcomed back Virtually Connecting, who were organising some opportunities to speak to speakers and delegates at the conference. Details of these are posted on the Virtually Connecting website and @VConnecting Twitter account.

4. Missed a live session?
Recordings of live sessions are immediately available, so don’t worry if you missed a session.

Link to the wakelet: https://wakelet.com/wake/b76925e9-5e6c-45b5-86bd-db8f2aaaf146




CMALT Learning and Technology interplay

Posted in announcement, Special edition, summary, Technology Learning | 1 Comment

A Summer Special #LTHEchat led by Sarah Honeychurch @NomadWarMachine on ‘Lurkers’ – Wednesday 25th July 8pm

Sarah HoneychurchWhat is lurking? Do you lurk? If so: when do you lurk, and what reasons do you have for doing so? Is lurking a legitimate strategy to cope with the abundance of content and conversations in the modern world, or are lurkers free loaders who watch others working and steal the results for themselves? Should we be calling out lurkers and lurking, or appreciating that there are times when such behaviour is perfectly acceptable at times.

What do you think about the work “lurking”? Is it an overused word with negative connotations, or should we be reclaiming the word for use in our modern world? If the former, which word or phrase would you replace it with, and why? My preferred phrase, which I give reasons for choosing in a recent article co-written with colleagues, is “legitimate peripheral participation” – but that’s a tongue twister, and I do find myself reverting back to using “lurking” as shorthand.

This Summer Special Twitter #LTHEChat is on Wednesday 25th July at 20:00 – 21:00 BST and invites participants to reflect on six questions about lurkers and lurking, and to consider how we might design our online and blended learning activities in the light of our answers to these questions.


Sarah Honeychurch @NomadWarMachine is a Fellow in the Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow, where she is investigating ways of making learning, teaching and assessment less stressful and more meaningful for staff and students. She is currently also writing-up a PhD in Education which considers the effects of online peer interaction on learning, and this has led to her interest in lurkers in online communities. Sarah is also an editor for the open, online, peer-reviewed journal Hybrid Pedagogy, and blogs at http://www.nomadwarmachine.co.uk/

Link to the Wakelet: http://wke.lt/w/s/OBzh6

Side notes:
A tweet a couple of days ago from Dr Hala Mansour @HalaMansour “Press like if you miss #LTHEchat” received 24 likes within minutes. This seemed an opportune time to put a challenge out to the @LTHEchat community to see if someone wanted to lead a Summer Special chat before the end of July. Unsurprisingly the challenge was met by a valued member of the #LTHEchat community and we are very excited to have Sarah Honeychurch to lead a chat on a theme that is very topical.

Posted in community | Tagged | 2 Comments