UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN
Curriculum Reform
Enhancing the Learning Environment to Support Learner Engagement
Paper from the Centre for Learning & Teaching
The theme of this paper is the enhancement of the learning environment at the University of
Aberdeen in order to support, and ultimately increase the engagement of learners. Its purpose is to
synthesise contributions on this theme to the Curriculum Reform debate, proposed by colleagues
from three cognate areas within the University of Aberdeen’s Centre for Learning & Teaching
(CLT). The remit of the CLT is to support staff and students across the University in the
enhancement of learning and teaching.
The scope of this paper is necessarily broad, representing the wide remit of staff within the Centre
and the range of experiences from which they are able to draw, as a result of working with both
staff and students from all three Colleges. Its key message is based around the issue of engagement
of students with their learning environment. The ideas presented are divided into suggestions which
focus on the nature of both the physical and the online learning environment, and those staff and
students who both shape and populate this learning environment, currently and in the future.
The learning environment, if we view it as a single entity, can be conceptualised in a variety of
ways. Firstly there is a physical environment, consisting of classrooms, lecture theatres and
including other, physical resources (e.g. books, paper copies of journals). Increasingly we use a
range of online learning environments too, utilising both large scale technologies (e.g. WebCT) and
smaller, local-scale applications. These might involve tools for course organisation, communication
and an increasing range of resources. The scholarly activities of our staff, working in disciplines
and frequently across subject boundaries, creates a third, intellectual learning environment.
Together these three elements combine to create a fourth, symbolic, learning environment, most
easily conceptualised through the eyes of our graduates. They will remember aspects of their time
at Aberdeen in terms of the preceding elements, combining them in different ways depending on the
nature of their own experiences. Clearly the learning environment is changing, particularly at
present with pressure from external, sometimes competing demands (for example the RAE),
changes in technology and changes in the demands of our potential student intake. Of interest is the
rise of the notion of “personalised” learning; in a society marked by mass branding and increasing
participation in higher education, learners are seeking ways to personalise and customise the
experience of higher education. This is the experience that they bring from both school and beyond
higher education, and one which they want to experience during their time at university.
The ideas in this paper are aimed at helping to shape the institution’s thinking in these increasingly
complex areas. The paper is supported by a series of longer appendices on each of the key areas
covered, to which the reader is directed as appropriate.
Much expertise in the CLT is based around online learning environments. Three supporting papers
(Fisher, Calder, Marston, appendices 1-3) examine elements of this increasingly important strand of
the learning environment, the ways in which it is developing and interfacing with the physical
environment and how the institution might respond to the challenges that this produces.
Increasingly there is blurring of the traditional boundaries between “learning” and “work”.
Students may be attending university at any point in their careers; they may be studying full-time or
part-time for a CPD qualification whilst continuing to work. Students also demand a relevant
experience at University which will serve them as they seek employment both within, and
increasingly outside, academia. Appendix 1 sets out the challenges that creating a customisable,
authentic online learning environment raises, as well as suggesting ways in which this might be
tackled. Such challenges as linking the learning experience at University to wider learning
communities, both locally and, increasingly, globally, are further discussed in Appendix 2. Here,
the development of an e-portfolio tool is described, and its implications examined. As a tool for
students to reflect both on their development and their courses, and as a practise that appears
increasingly to align with professional development requirements outside academia, (in the light of
the Burgess Report, http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/measuringachievement.pdf),
development in this area is seen as increasingly useful and important. Looking to the future,
Appendix 3 describes the rise of pervasive, ubiquitous computing and some of the implications of
an increasingly networked environment, with tools that can assist learners at all stages in both
communication and data acquisition and storage, and the ways in which we as humans interface
with this technology. This paper poses an interesting question: with the rise of cheap handheld
devices with vast storage capacity, will the need to have facts at one’s fingertips be a skill required
in the future? Will the assessment of factual retention be considered “quaint” in the future? This
section is concluded by considering briefly what the further implications might be on the physical
learning environment as a result of these changes to the online environment.
Having considered aspects of the learning environment, the population of that environment, both by
students and staff is next examined. Considering students first, Appendix 4 discusses the so-called
“Net Generation”; people born after 1982 who are considered by some to be so familiar with
technology that it seems like second nature to them. The expectations of this generation are
somewhat different to that which preceded it; using and being comfortable with technology,
expecting to be connected to colleagues, friends and family at all times, resulting in rapid
communication and feedback, and an increasing recognition of communication and social
networking as ways both to work and relax. Such technologies, and the willingness of many
students to engage with them, open up new opportunities for staff and students to enhance the
learning environment in which they work. However, being a member of the “Net Generation” does
not necessarily equate with being skilled and critical in the use of information (JISC, 2007), and a
re-evaluation of the role of higher education in this evolving scenario is called for (Appendix 4:
Preston).
The University is also host to an increasingly international student and staff population, with a rise
of c.40% in international students since 2003. As a university with a mission to be in the top 100 in
the world, our outlook is becoming increasingly international. As such we cannot afford to view
international students’ needs and concerns (e.g. language, cultural) as “deficits” requiring some
form of “remediation”; instead we need a rigorous system to develop the skills of the international
student body. Ideally this development should be embedded within the curriculum, involving both
students and staff and providing early diagnostic and formative assessment. Appendix 5 (Di Pietro
& Bray) describes such a model, developed jointly between CLT staff and the Language Centre.
Our learning environments are of course shaped and populated by staff. Through the subjects that
are taught, and the disciplines that surround us, scholarly environments with their own traditions,
methods and ‘folklore’ are created. Appendix 6 (Comber) provides a critical view of such
environments, asking us to reconsider how staff develop and maintain such environments, and how
we might develop such structures further in order to create true “communities of learning”, using
the professional practices (from both research and teaching) in which staff are immersed.
With further challenges to the individual nature of a higher education at any one institution (for
example the MIT Open Courseware Programme,
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/web/courses/courses/index.htm), plus a body of increasingly strategic
students who are selecting courses based on criteria that may transcend the purely academic, then
how might this University make the experience for its learners different and better? Extracting and
synthesising the key challenges from the various appendices to this document, the following ideas
are proposed for discussion by the Steering Group:
1. The learning environment as a community. This is an increasingly important aspect of
many professional and personal situations. What sort of scholarly community have we
constructed at Aberdeen? Who belongs to it?
2. Belonging to a community on entry. Can students at levels 1 & 2 be brought increasingly
into a community, rather than just being taught a subject? Anecdotal evidence suggests that
students feel disowned until they reach honours. Can we create an environment with which
students feel engaged from day 1?
3. Global engagement. As an institution with a mission to be in the top 100 universities in the
world, how can we support, fully exploit and extend our engagement across the world, using
both traditional networks (conferences etc.) and emerging technologies to teach, assess and
support learning?
4. As a research-driven institution, how can we further utilise our research to support our
teaching and assessment strategies, involving students in “research-like” teaching even if not
at the “cutting edge” from day one?
5. Do we teach and assess in ways that engage students fully from day 1? Have we fully
considered and evaluated both our existing effective practices and thought about other
methods of supporting learning (for example problem-based learning, enquiry-based
learning etc.)
These ideas, viewed through the lens of Curriculum Reform, play to the strengths of both staff and
students.
APPENDIX 1
University learning environments: they just need to grow up! Exploiting the
online environment to build professional engagement
Joan Fisher
Senior eLearning Adviser
The University’s current online learning environment bears little relevance to a graduate’s later working
world. This disparity does not encourage optimum engagement, and represents an opportunity lost in terms
of professional development in a professional setting.
Most large and many medium-sized companies now deploy business portals and intranets, enabling roletailored access to information, applications and workspaces. These environments are increasingly critical for
managing workflows, supporting flexible working (work-life balance) arrangements and increasing
collaboration between project teams. They support a large number of business processes including project
management, interactive modelling, collaborative document authoring, document control and real-time
communications between dispersed workgroups. They also routinely support a number of essential HR
functions. One example is Shell’s award winning Intranet design described in a case study by the developers
(online, Intranet DASHBOARD, 2007).
A key feature of these environments is the strong sense of corporate identity: the company's 'message' and
ethos permeate all aspects of the portal. Integration of components is visually seamless, so that the user is
not forced to make contextual jumps between applications (eg as from WebCT to Student Portal or
Email/Calendar). As one portal vendor states, 'A Portal is much more than a simple business tool. It is also
the biggest investment you can make in your people and your internal cultural identity & branding....It
should feel like home.' (online, Alchemy) The user's sense of belonging is further enhanced by the ability to
personalise the environment.
Research portals are another example of this 'grown-up' online environment. Designed to feel that they are
truly part of the culture within which they operate these environments make it easy, by technology and
design, for users to interact with the wider world of a discipline.
If the graduate's online work environment can encompass the above qualities, why are many university
learning environments so out of step and out of time? Unfortunately an institution’s online learning
environment has been considered synonymous with its'VLE' (in this University’s case, WebCT), a single
application into which students are dropped to 'do the learning thing'. The drawbacks are manifold: the range
of tools within a VLE does not reflect those likely to turn up in the workplace; there is no option for users to
personalise the environment and make it their own; the VLE has no meaningful interface with the rest of the
institution's applications and Web pages and there is no corporate branding. Furthermore the environment is
highly insular in that its design does little to encourage and support interaction with the wider HE network,
vocational forums and industry. (The concept of a VLE 'course' is exclusive by its very nature... the doors
are barred to all but those who have been 'enrolled onto the course' i.e. have a password to get through the
door.)
It is possible for an institution to move on from the VLE concept to a more complete learning environment
that would present a foretaste of the online workplace, support the student’s gradual emergence into the
professional community of practice, foster professional and intellectual development, and create a sense of
belonging that will aid retention, support progression and encourage alumni to return.
The components are readily available for such an environment. What is needed is a switch from WebCT to a
highly extensible learning environment, integrated with a comprehensive portal application. Added to this it
is essential to exploit the richness of the wider internet environment, which offers a growing range of
subject-based and vocational forums, news sites, online tools and participatory simulations, where students
can engage with peers and professionals in their subject area. Examples include Math Forum at
http://www.mathforum.org (online, Drexel University) and MIT PDA Participatory Simulations at
http://education.mit.edu/pda/ (online, MIT). There are also many specific tools to support study of complex
systems, modelling and scientific simulations, and opportunities for peripheral participation in research
projects. Universities that have adopted a portal/intranet/learning environment approach, rather than relying
simply on a VLE, include Yale, Harvard (Figure 1, below) and the Open University. Many other universities
currently conducting evaluations of their learning environments are also looking beyond a basic VLE
solution.
An environment as described could support students in a continuum of professional development from
joining university. By reflecting the structure, richness and authenticity of a workplace environment it would
emphasise the relevance of coursework and learning outcomes. By enabling and encouraging
communication with a wider community it would support a progressive immersion in the community of
practice and increasing familiarity with the vocabulary, standards and methodologies of a discipline. It
would help to prepare students to communicate in the workplace, by exposing them to the diversity of
communication and the subtleties of language in a professional situation. Such an environment could
support collaborative projects and research tasks, with student groups at other institutions and with
professionals in industry. This online engagement with the wider community could also facilitate virtual
placements' whereby students could participate in a company's online environment and contribute to real
projects. It could also help to maintain the interest of alumni.
Learning and the learner have evolved faster in the last decade than over any similar period previously.
People now learn throughout their lives: worlds of ‘work’ and ‘learning’ are less distinguishable. Learners
have become more autonomous: expectations of an adult, customisable experience are high. Applicants have
become more discerning and strategic: they seek relevance and authenticity, and a route into the workplace.
University learning environments, they just need to grow up.
Figure 1: Harvard’s student portal (http://my.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do )
Figure 2: Mock-up of an eLearning environment / portal for University of Aberdeen
References
Alchemy: Intranet Portal Design.
http://www.alchemyebusinessconsulting.co.uk/intranet/services/intranet-portal-design.html Accessed on 2
May 2008
Drexel University: Math Forum.
http://www.mathforum.org Accessed on 2 May 2008
Harvard University: MyHarvard.
http://my.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do (requires guest registration) Accessed on 11 April 2008
MIT: MIT PDA Participatory Simulations.
http://education.mit.edu/pda/ Accessed on 2 May 2008
Intranet DASHBOARD: Shell Case Study. 20 April 2007.
http://www.intranetdashboard.com/press/case_studies/case_study_shell.pdf Accessed on 2 May 2008
APPENDIX 2
The e-Learning environment and the curriculum
Dr Colin Calder
Senior eLearning Adviser
The learning environment for today’s taught students consists of not just the lecture theatres,
tutorial rooms, libraries, and labs found on campus - it includes the online learning environment
accessed on a daily basis by all students. This online learning environment includes a variety of
University supported applications, for example WebCT for course management and content,
Questionmark Perception for assessment, the library catalogue, and a wide range of bespoke
applications across the disciplines. These tools form the core of traditional e-learning environments,
and typically fall into three categories:
Simulations or applications which provide problem based learning
Tools which facilitate communication between staff and students
Course tools providing services such as secure assessments, repositories for notes and course
content, and timetabling and class management tools.
When enthusiastically embedded and blended with campus based learning and teaching activities
there is an overwhelming body of research evidence to indicate that learning outcomes are enhanced
by e-learning activities. In an ideal world the pedagogies we choose should dictate the tools we
adopt, but the two are nevertheless closely related. The strategic institutional decisions about the
tools we support have consequences for the learning activities we offer, and the learning our
students experience.
In addition to the strategic choices we make at the institutional level, students are also making
tactical choices about what aspects of the curriculum and learning environment they engage with.
They are increasingly relying not only on the tools, activities, and content we provide, but also
choosing their own online learning tools and websites to visit. Students more frequently decide
themselves where to access information, decide how they communicate with their peers, and decide
which communities they belong to. Student expectations for the online learning environment are
consequently changing driven by factors out-with the University, and are relevant to recruitment,
retention, and progression.
Building on independent student choice can however encourage Independent self directed learning,
a key life skill and graduate attribute. The more student centred activities we can design into the
curriculum the better, whether this be facilitated by e-learning or campus based activity.
The e-portfolio serves as a useful example of a technology which can be deployed to promote
student centred learning. All undergraduates at Aberdeen now have their own personal e-portfolios
implemented to support Personal Development Planning, but their e-portfolios are also online
spaces where they can collect, share, and reflect on their academic work. The development of a
portfolio over time being seen by many as the key, with the learning activity rather than the transfer
of content enabling students to develop as effective learners.
If we choose to engage with tools like e-portfolios, and encourage early independent learning in
undergraduates, then there are also consequences for the curricula we design. Stefani et al1 for
example reporting:
1
Stefani, Mason, & Pegler. 2007. the Educational potential of e-portfolios p.68. Routledge 2007
One of the more interesting observations to emerge from the use of e-portfolios in curriculum
design is the way in which they are subtly altering the curriculum. This is the result of two factors:
The processes of student reflection provide the teacher with insight into which aspects of the
curriculum are successful and which are not.
The public nature of e-portfolios, as with the web in general, means that teachers’ curriculum
design is subject to greater scrutiny.
In addition to student learning, our curriculum also serves as a framework for summative
assessment, ultimately leading to degree classification. At the course level e-portfolios are often
used as a framework for formative and summative assessments, feedback, and student reflection,
but may also in future contribute to a richer measure of student achievement and classification. The
Burgess report ‘Beyond the honours degree classification’2 recently proposed that the degree
classification be enriched by a ‘Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR)’, one aspect of
which could be student generated and supported by evidence collected and verified through eportfolio. Collecting evidence over time in a portfolio is a method of assessment in step with
lifelong learning, and longstanding professional practice.
As the HEA commented, ‘The principal focus of measures of student achievement should be on
students themselves’
The exemplar of the e-portfolio is one aspect of the e-Learning environment which is student
centred, but institutionally managed. The changing online experience, and use of tools like eportfolio serve to highlight that students are exercising increasing choice about how as well as what
they learn. We have opportunity to promote as an institution student centred approaches to learning
and teaching, and design curricula sufficiently flexible to be delivered with the student and student
choice at the centre.
No matter what we choose to teach, to be competitive our online and physical leaning environments
need to complement each other, and our approaches to teaching and learning need to be up to date
and continuously maintained so as to meet and exceed student expectations.
2
Beyond the honours degree classification: Burgess Group Final Report. October 2007
http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/downloads/measuringachievement.pdf
APPENDIX 3
Impact of Emergent Technologies on Learning and teaching in the 21st
Century
Philip Marston
Learning Technology Adviser
What are humans good at? No matter how technology has changed what we are able to do and how,
one thing seems to remain constant and that is human abilities and motivations. These are the things that
shape the use and development of technology and they’re also the things that seem to set us apart from even
the most sophisticated technologies.
It seems to be human nature for one to constantly strive to improve one’s lot. Be that to make one’s job
easier, to have more money or to merely be happier (whatever that means). Almost uniquely we seem to be
driven to innovate (sometimes deceitfully). Humans are social animals and where improvements can be
made by pooling resources and collaborating; there is a natural tendency to do so. Some of the abilities that
humans have that seems to elude technology is the ability to find meaning in mere facts (make sense of
things, literacy), distinguish truth from fiction, empathize (see things from another’s point of view), reframe
insights to communicate them and to be creative (think laterally, ask what if).
What then are humans bad at? Remembering details, holding large enough amounts of information in
our minds eye in order to see relationships, notice complex patterns and perform mathematical
transformations and comparisons on such information. Humans are also not very good travelling or
communicating over large distances without assistance.
It is in these later areas where technology has provided us with the most benefit and where the greatest
advances are likely to impact education in the early part of the 21st Century.
According to Sandford & Facer in the Beyond Current Horizons Futures Review3 “there are three broad
categories that [...] the technologies most likely to impact society and education in the future can be grouped
under”. These are:
Automation and artificial intelligence
Ubiquitous computing
Brain/world interfaces
3
Sandford R. & Facer K. 2008.Beyond Current Horizons Futures Review.
http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/futures-review/ p44
Automation and artificial intelligence
Artificial intelligence already impacts our lives in the algorithms used by the search engines and
recommender systems we employ when using Google or Amazon. Intelligent agents are used in the less
obvious realms of financial data management and logistics, when huge amounts of complex data need to be
managed and interpreted. Mathematical modelling used to handle large amounts of complex data are
allowing us to model complex structures such as biological systems and the earth’s climate.
As more data describing the world and our activities in it is gathered and stored, AI and modelling could
provide new insights, allow greater understanding and result in further automation of many activities.
Computer Vision is one area of inference engine technology that is currently showing rapid advances.
Technologies currently exist that can identify objects never before ‘seen’ by a particular computer system
such as fruit and veg. on a checkout conveyor belt or objects in a street scene captured on CCTV cameras.
Another example is a piece of software that can aggregate digital images found on the internet that appear to
be of the same object. When this ability is combined with the fact that some of these images have associated
metadata, all the aggregated images can thus inherit all the associated metadata. Very quickly a network of
cross references can be built up where at least one of the search terms could actually be a photograph of the
object in question.
Genetic algorithms are used in the design of computer chips and other complex systems. The massive
computational power available in modern computers means they can use these algorithms to evolve new
designs according to parameters such as size, cost and efficiency. Current computing technology is too
complicated to be designed by humans alone.
Ubiquitous computing
Sandford & Facer describe ubiquitous computing as a “Seamless computing infrastructure combined
with massive increases in processing and storage power, accessible via miniturised devices and ‘natural’
interfaces that are distributed and integrated into the individual and their environment. This infrastructure
connects the individual constantly with ‘the network’ (the convergence of systems we currently see as
distinct i.e. internet/telephone/TV and so forth)”.4
They go on to point out that these technological developments may play a significant role in networking
relationships between individuals, society and the environment via always available networks and access to
information and communication. Indeed this seems highly likely if the trends seen in the use of social
networking software and the open source movement are anything to go by. Mass collaboration for mutual
benefit when it is easy enough to do, does appear to be attractive to mankind. Perhaps say Sandford & Facer
these “Examples [...] require us to begin to explore ways of understanding [...] intelligence as distributed and
collective.”5 Which begs the question how we might assess an individual’s understanding and intelligence in
the future.
Just as we would no longer wish to speak of Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs), since they are so
integral to our notion of an actual learning environment, it is possible to envision a time when the notion of
the networked and the non-networked no longer make sense. As Sandford & Facer put it: “Distinctions
between ‘cyberspace’ and ‘real space’ may be further eroded as we move towards an ‘internet of things’.”6
RFID7 embedded in objects in the environment will allow us to access information about those objects
that goes beyond what is available by merely seeing them, recognising them and recalling what you know
4
Sandford R. & Facer K. 2008.Beyond Current Horizons Futures Review.
http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/futures-review/ pp45-46
5
Sandford R. & Facer K. 2008.Beyond Current Horizons Futures Review.
http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/futures-review/ pp46
6
Ibid.
7
Radio-frequency Identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID
about them. Instead you may not even need to see the object, to be made aware of its presence, nor will you
have to know anything about it in advance as all you may want to know will be available then and there
either from the object itself or via ‘the network’.
The facility to communicate with individuals or groups of people anywhere in the world means people
will always have access to their social networks. This could range from simply contacting friends to arrange
where to meet later that day to posing a question about an idea you’ve had or a paper you’ve heard about to
the community of scholars working in your field. With large global social networks responses to these
questions could be near instantaneous 24/7.
Brain/world interfaces
Sandford and Facer’s description for this is: “the ways in which the relationship between the mind and
the external world is mediated through the use of emergent technologies.”8
The body is the primary means of mediating between the mind and the external world. One way in
which future technology may play a role is in body enhancements. These could be physical (bodily
prosthetics) and/or biological/chemical (e.g. brain enhancing or mood changing smart drugs). Prosthetics,
such as cochlear implants, already exist. Retinal implants are being developed and memory chips have been
tested in monkeys. Other prosthetic research is in the area of brain-computer interfaces for paraplegics and
systems where a patient can control an onscreen cursor, an electric wheel chair, voice generation software
and even their own limbs (in the case of victims of severed spinal cord) are already at advanced stages.
More conventionally the main means for the brain to interface with a computer is through a keyboard,
mouse and screen, but there are developments away from this crude means that don’t require implanting
electrodes in our brains. There are developments towards more ‘natural’ interfaces in terms of input such as
voice recognition, touch screens, gesture recognition, bio-sensors and haptic devices. For computer output
purposes display technologies are advancing with high resolution flexible films (allowing screens to be
rolled up or hung on walls like wall paper), projectors the size of sugar cubes (allowing mobile devices to
project large displays on any available surface), head-up-displays (HUDs) in glasses (allowing information
about the wearer’s environment to be displayed in view over the top of the environment (Augmented
reality)). For instance aeronautics engineers working on aircraft systems can see digital schematics of the
system they’re working on super-imposed via the lens of their glasses over the actual system they are looking
at.
Another development in interfaces is the use of 3D immersive environments. While Virtual Reality
(VR) has been long explored for applications such as engineering and architecture, it is the significant
developments in computer game technology that has brought the current crop of 3D immersive environments
out of the CAVE9 and on to the desktops & handsets of ordinary computer users. High levels of graphical
realism, surround sound, voice communication and the integration of applications normally associated with
the work environment mean that companies like Sun Microsystems are running virtual work places in which
employees around the world can collaborate on projects10. The experience of telepresence is good enough
for some users to mitigate the need for actual presence and this will only improve.
“We are living in exponential times”
The pace of scientific development is exponential according to Ray Kurzweil11. A good example is the
Sandford R. & Facer K. 2008. “Beyond Current Horizons Futures Review”.
http://www.beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/futures-review/ pp46
9
Cave Automatic Virtual Environment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_Automatic_Virtual_Environment
10
”Current Reality and Future Vision: Open Virtual Worlds”. Sun Services White Paper 2008
http://www.sun.com/service/applicationserversubscriptions/OpenVirtualWorld.pdf
11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil
8
human genome project. If technology had stood still at the point where they started the project they would
still be mapping the genome today. Instead year on year they were able to accelerate the mapping of the
previous year and are now well into a period of making practical use of the new found insights. If the same
rapidity is seen in research into brain interfaces (or any of the above mentioned technologies) then the
practical implications could be with us surprisingly quickly. At this pace of development it is hard to predict
or even imagine what kind of developments might be on the middle horizon (20 years) let alone the far
horizon (30 or 40 years).
Consider that 20 years ago, digital telephony didn’t exist practically and calls were made via exchanges
with mechanical relays. Today everyone in the Western world (as well as large numbers in the developing
world) has a small digital phone in their pocket that also has multifunctional capabilities. 20 years ago PHD
candidates had to book time on the university main-frame computer to process their data. Today the same
multifunction phone just mentioned contains enough processing power to carry out those same tasks. In two
more years that power is likely to have doubled and only cost half as much as it does today.
By the time the initial stages of the Curriculum Reform process is complete in 2010, students will be
beginning to be able to have always connected devices in their pockets with similar processing power to
today’s desktop PCs at a fraction of the cost (if not free, depending on their mobile operators service plan).
These devices will serve as their wallets, ID cards and as a portal to any information they care to search for,
as well as information being pushed to them (e.g. advertising as they pass a store).
10 years later the integration with the networked world is unlikely to be via a single discreet device, but
by a collection of devices that work as a wirelessly connected mesh. The clothes and jewellery worn will
provide a local network (GPS, environmental sensors, comms., media access and wider network access).
Interface with devices may be via gestures or even neuro-sensors.
The practical implications: What might the future look like?12
Take the currently available machine vision and inference technology that can search datasets based on
similar images in the set, combine it with the nascent ‘networks’ of ubiquitous computing and brain/world
interfaces such as the head-up-displays that fighter pilots and luxury cars use, it is likely that we will see
such technologies as pairs of glasses or eventually retinal implants that can relay what the wearer sees, via
the ‘network’ for analysis, to return information about what is seen to be displayed superimposed on the
object the wearer is looking at.
In a world of ubiquitous computing everything is connected to ‘the network’ and a wealth of
information is at hand. Just as is the case today with London Transport’s Oyster Card you won’t need a
ticket, the gate will ‘know’ you have paid and grant you access. You will pay for your shopping just by
being present at the checkout (as is being trialed by some mobile phone operators and super markets), where
the groceries are not scanned individually by a laser, but identified by their RFID chips en masse (or visually
recognised in the case of fresh fruit and veg.) while still in your trolley.
You will be able to ask your personal device to remind you things according to certain rules (much as
we currently do will our email filters). For instance you may wish to have a look at the latest device next
time you’re in the vicinity of a shop that sells them, you could set that as a ‘rule’ on your personal device and
as it would be aware of your location and be linked to all premises as you pass by, it would also discover
whether they have the item you are interested in and alert you to it’s availability.
A student in the library may be able to access the library catalogue entry for a particular item by simply
passing their mobile device in the vicinity of an item embedded with an RFID chip. Students in another
scenario may receive automatic updates to their mobile device of lecture notes and to their class schedule
merely by entering the room in which their next lecture is being held. ‘The network’ would recognise their
See also Daanen H. & Facer K. 2007. “2020 and Beyond: Future scenarios for education in the age of new
technologies”. Futurelab
http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications_reports_articles/opening_education_reports
12
presence in the appropriate space, identify them and that they are registered for that course and thus entitled
to the updates. They could be provided with personal messages and receive their marked assignments too.
It is conceivable using technologies that exist or are in development today that in the not too distant
future that you could pose a question to your social network merely by thinking about it and receive their
aggregated collective response via your cochlear implant and no-one around you would know (unless
perhaps they were also part of your network).
Higher Education Learning & Teaching in 21st Century
In a world where access to information is ubiquitous remembering information will cease to be relevant.
New information will be being generated at such a rate it would make little sense to commit to human
memory information that may be out of date the following week, month or year. Assessing recall will seem
quaint, open network assessment (like open book) will be more relevant, if at all exam hall assessments even
remain.
For a graduate the most important abilities to stand a chance of achieving success will be those human
ones that for the time being set us apart from technology. The ability to find meaning in mere facts (make
sense of things, literacy), distinguish truth from fiction, empathize (see things from another’s point of view),
reframe insights to communicate them and to be creative (think laterally, ask what if). There will be a need
to develop teaching and assessment strategies that more accurately develop and reflect the student’s abilities
in these important areas.
The graduate who will be successful in the 21st Century, will be able to not just understand concepts,
but synthesis them and apply them in different contexts. They will know how to find the information they
need and vet its reliability. They will know how to ask the right questions and provide clear and insightful
answers. They will be able to understand what is necessary to communicate their own insights and how to
illicit the insights of others. They will be collaborative and know how to work in a team in what ever role is
necessary for the task at hand. They will have a moral sensibility and an understanding of the ethical
consequences of a chosen course of action.
Therefore in many respects the graduate of the 21st century will be no different to any graduate of
higher education in the last 500 years. The difference will be in their Learning & Teaching, the powerful
resources they have at their disposal, the pace of change in the world around them and how we assess their
ability to operate at a the ‘higher’ levels expected of a graduate. As an Institute of Higher Education we will
have to have a clear sense of what scholarship and higher learning is and we will have to be clear on how we
both deliver and assess such a thing in way that cannot be simply open to abuse by the application of
technology what ever it may turn out to be.
APPENDIX 4
The Net Generation: Implications for Education in the 21st Century
Dr Sara Preston
Senior eLearning Adviser
Education in the 21st Century
There is an increasing realisation, worldwide, that current educational systems need to be reviewed in order
to better meet individual and societal needs of the 21st Century. As part of such a process, we need to be clear
about the purpose of higher education, students’ and institutions’ expectations, curricula expectations and the
role of technology in learning (Clayton-Pedersen & O’Neill, 2008).
Oblinger (2008) suggests that Institutions need to help students develop the skills that are harder to come by,
skills such as the ability to distinguish between unreliable and reliable forms of information, to synthesize
new ideas and knowledge, to carry out research, to learn by doing within their chosen discipline, to work
across disciplines and cultural boundaries.
As stated by Brown & Adler (2008):
‘We are entering a world in which we all will have to acquire new knowledge and skills on an almost
continual basis’
In a world of ubiquitous computing, technology must be fully integrated into the curriculum if we are to
capitalize on the learning styles exhibited by the Net Generation and the potential of technology to enhance
learning.
The Net Generation
The Net Generation (students born after 1982) have grown up with the internet and cannot imagine life
without it. They use the internet to communicate (friends, family etc), to entertain themselves, to make
purchases, to access information, to learn.
Oblinger & Oblinger (2005) highlighted several characteristics of the Net Generation that could have a
significant impact on higher education. Net Generation students are:
 digitally literate - they intuitively use technology and multimedia
 connected - they are never out of touch due to the pervasiveness of technology (mobile devices,
wireless networks etc)
 immediate - they expect things fast and have fast response times
 experiental - they prefer to learn by doing
 social – they seek out social interaction, whether by instant messaging their friends, joining gaming
teams, blogging etc.
These characteristics have resulted in this generation exhibiting particular learning styles. They prefer
interactive hands-on activities, are more visual and kinaesthetic learners, enjoy collaborating, working in
teams, solving real-world problems. They are multi-taskers. They seamlessly move between the physical and
online worlds – to them, there is no distinction between these worlds. They therefore expect an engaging
learning environment (whether physical or online) that provides them with opportunities for carrying out
collaborative, media-rich experiential learning activities.
Furthermore, to this generation, technology is just a means to an end, and as such, they expect to be able to
customise it to meet their individual needs. However, being comfortable with technology does not mean that
they are proficient in the use of technology, nor aware of the importance of issues such as intellectual
property.
Technology and Learning: Expectations of the Net Generation
Interestingly, the fact that the Net Generation use technology as part of their every day life does not mean
that they have high expectations of the use of technology in Higher Education (Roberts, 2005). However, this
may well be because their experiences have, in general, been limited to searching the internet, accessing
course content online, and word-processing assignments.
Neither does the Net Generation have a preference for online learning over face-to-face. In fact, quite the
opposite is true. They expect face-to-face interaction with their peers and teaching staff and revel in the
social aspects of learning. The Net Generation view teaching staff that are passionate and knowledgeable
about their chosen field as the key to successful learning, coupled with the fact that such staff should be wellinformed and skilful in the use technology to enhance learning (Roberts, 2005).
In a recent JISC study (JISC, 2007), prospective university students’ thought that technology should:
‘support established methods of teaching and admin;
act as an additional resource for research and communication;
be a core part of social engagement and facilitate face-to-face friendships at university’
However, it has to be borne in mind that these views are based on their experiences of their current use of
technology at school or college.
As students’ experience of technology in education increases so will their expectations of its use in Higher
Education. Glow, Scotland’s national schools intranet, was launched in 2007 and will digitally link
Scotland’s 800,000 educators and pupils. Glow aims to provide online resources and connected learning
opportunities for all participants. As Glow becomes embedded across Schools and the potential learning
opportunities afforded by such a project begin to be exploited, so will students’ expectations of the role of
technology in learning will change.
The impact of the Internet / Technology on Education There have been various technological developments that are beginning to have a transformational effect on
education, redefining what it is to be a learner in the 21st-Century. These are:






The Open Educational Resources (OER) movement (the release of teaching, learning and research
resources under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or re-purposing by others).
Access to remote instrumentation (expensive and scarce tools) enabling students to engage in the
types of activities undertaken by professional researchers (e.g. The Bugscope project)
Social Learning
o Access to research and scholarly portals that provide access to educational resources, enable
students to contribute to these communities of practice and to interact with professional
scientists/scholars (e.g. Faulkes Telescope Student Academy, Hands-on Universe; the
Decameron Web)
Virtual Worlds (Second Life)
Simulations – exponential increase in sophistication
Web 2.0 – user-generated content, the power of the crowd / communities of practice, openness,
participation encouraged because of their ease of use
Higher Education Institutions need to be aware of these developments and the opportunities they present for
enhancing learning.
Challenges / Implications
The internet and technology is transforming education. Higher Education institutions need to be more than
responsive – they need to be proactive about the use of technology and inspirational. Some of the challenges
that will need to be addressed are:



Designing engaging physical and online environments
Integrating technology into the curriculum (both in terms of learning and assessment)
Empowering and supporting staff in the use of technology for enhancing learning
References:
Clayton-Pedersen, A.R. & O’Neill, N. 2005. Chapter 9: Curricula Designed to Meet 21st-Century
Expectations, In Educating the Net Generation (D. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger, eds). Educause.
Oblinger, D & Oblinger, J. 2005. Chapter 2: Is it Age or IT: First Steps Toward Understanding the Net
Generation, In Educating the Net Generation (D. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger, eds). Educause.
Oblinger, D. 2008. Growing up with Google. What it means to education. In Emerging Technologies for
Learning. Becta Research Report, March 2008, Vol. 3. pp. 11-19.
Roberts, G.R. 2005. Chapter 3: Technology and Learning Expectation of the Net Generation, In Educating
the Net Generation (D. Oblinger and J.L. Oblinger, eds). Educause.
Brown, J.S. & Adler, R.P. 2008. Minds on Fire. Open Education, the Long Tail and Learning 2.0. Educause
Review. January/February, pp 17- 32.
JISC, 2007. Student Expectations Study. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/publications/studentexpectations
APPENDIX 5
Teaching International Students: A Collaborative Framework for Embedding
Academic Skills Training into the Course Syllabus
Lynn Di Pietro, Academic Support Adviser (International Students)
Julie Bray, English for Academic Purposes Programme (EAP)
Introduction
International students enrich our community. They bring a cross-cultural perspective to the classroom and to
the university as a whole. They encourage staff and students to negotiate cultural difference, an important
life skill in the 21st century; however, the very presence of international students on campus does not assure
that these opportunities take place. Indeed, diverse backgrounds and differing expectations can lead to
cultural tensions in the classroom. If internationalization is to be a priority teaching and academic support
staff will need to examine and adapt their own practice to optimize the learning experience for all students in
the multi-cultural classroom.
Priority for International Postgraduate Taught Students
Perhaps the best way to fuel this process is to focus on the learning concerns of international taught
postgraduates. They make up the largest group of international students and their needs are most the
pressing. Unlike undergraduates and research postgraduates who have the time to evolve linguistically and to
develop academic skills overtime, taught post graduates must complete their degrees in 12 months.
Responding to the Needs of Taught Postgraduates
Student demographics in our post graduate taught programmes have changed over the last ten years.
International students are no longer a small group scattered across programmes. For many programmes the
opposite is true. International students are the norm. Their language and cultural challenges can not be seen
as deficits needing remediation outside the subject classroom. Instead we must develop an inclusive teaching
practice informed by students’ diverse academic backgrounds.
“The deficit view of international students is not effective pedagogically because it assumes not only that
some cultures are in “ deficit” but that cultural baggage is carried only by students and not
teachers”(Teaching International Students: Improving Learning for All. Edited by J. Carroll and J. Ryan.
London: Routledge. 2005)
Embedding Academic Skill Support into Course Syllabus
If we are to take globalization seriously, we need to raise awareness on both sides of the desk: Students from
different academic cultures have different expectations of the teaching and learning experience. New
expectations are not easily absorbed when they are presented as abstract directives in the course handbook or
in general induction sessions. Programmes should be explicit about what is expected in student work and
how the work will be assessed. Most importantly, in a 12 month course programmes must provide students
with opportunities to practice and receive feedback on their work early in the semester. Acquiring skills like
critical /analytical thinking and scientific reasoning are meaningful to students when they are contextualized
into the subject curriculum, applied and evaluated.
The collaboration model below details how an embedded skills strategy might be incorporated into a core
course.
Collaboration Model: Support and Teaching Staff Working Within a Core Course
This approach to international student support is founded on an on-going collaboration between a taught
postgraduate core course instructor and academic and language support staff. It draws on the expertise of all
groups to embed academic skills and language development into a course syllabus. The support is not superimposed on the existing course structure but integrated into the syllabus. The model relies on early formative
assessment and targeted support as needs emerge. It is likely to be labour intensive in the development stage
but ideally the skills applied and the support materials developed in the targeted course would transfer to
other courses in the programme.
Four Steps in a Collaborative Embedded Skills Strategy
1. Teaching International Students Workshops (hosted by CLT)
 Discussion and awareness raising about effective practices for lecturing; leading seminars
and tutorials for an international audience
 Staff /student dialogue about cross-cultural concerns and issues
impacting international students’ success
2. Core Course Instructor, and Academic and Language Support Staff Work Together to Identify.
 the academic skills crucial to study in the discipline
 progression in which skills are needed
 the assignments in which these skills will be demonstrated
 the specific criteria used to assess the skills
 opportunities for formative feedback as students move through learning processing
 conventions of writing in the discipline for second language speakers
 key language inventory for second language speakers
3. Two-phase Support to Provide Students with Explicit Information about Expectations Identified
in Step 2 above
Phase 1: Front Loaded Awareness –Raising Orientation (extended: 2 or more days)
Hands-on workshop using discipline specific materials explaining conventions of study in the
discipline such as
 Expectations of the teacher/student relationship
 Assessment criteria made explicit
 Teaching methods to be used and expected student response
 Rigour of Masters’ level study as opposed to undergraduate study
 Core academic skills such as critical/thinking / scientific reasoning to be demonstrated in
coursework
 Features of academic style in writing assignments
Phase 2: On-going Targeted In- Session Support
 early diagnostic assignments
 early formative feedback in a non threatening environment
 specific workshops/tutorials as needs emerge
4. Development of Print and On-line Materials to be used in Workshops and as Support Resources
Course instructor and support staff develop discipline specific materials to teach key skills in orientation and
follow-up sessions as well as resource materials to promote learner autonomy during the course. Materials
might include:







Heuristic devices such as Bloom's taxonomy to address critical thinking
Annotated samples of effective writing
Second-language writing support using model texts to illustrate
-organizational moves and textual features in a model written work
-exercises to recognize grammar and vocabulary conventions
-discourse markers to establish coherency
-vocabulary inventory
Readings to apply critical reading skills
Guidelines/checklists for critical reading
Guidelines/Checklist for self-review of written work
Video of effective oral presentations
APPENDIX 6
Creating a “Learning Community”
Dr Darren Comber
Senior Educational Development Adviser
The notion of a “learning community” (see http://www.units.muohio.edu/celt/flcs/index.php) is growing in
stature both in the UK and the USA as their rationale of engagement and involvement is examined and
utilised. A learning community has been defined as one in which its members share common purposes, and
which members use to negotiate meaning and to undertake purposeful action (Tagg, 2003: 255). The
University of Glasgow is running a pilot learning community for teaching staff
(http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/2089/), whilst for students Locks et al. (2008) stress the importance of managing the
transition into higher education, and note that this might be supported by greater involvement in what is for
them a new social and cultural, as well as academic, environment. Parker (2002) reminds us that the
traditional idea of the discipline also represents a community of learning, and that the concept is not
necessarily a new one.
This paper describes the elements that comprise an effective learning community, using a five-themed
approach described by Tagg (2003). Each theme is a self-contained thesis, with its own aims and potentially
beneficial outcomes. These are framed here as emergent questions that might be considered in the
Curriculum Reform debate. The themes can be viewed as hierarchical, with each subsuming the former until
the fifth theme (learning communities) provides an encompassing environment in which the previous four
themes can co-exist.
1. Intrinsically rewarding goals:
People who choose and enjoy what they are doing become more committed to those things than to tasks
or goals that are imposed externally and without personal commitment required. Conversely, students
might apply themselves for short periods to tasks which have been constructed by others but about which
they care little (exam passes). This has implications for the kind of learning environment that we want to
create It has been posited (Tagg, 2003:) that we “produce” students who are playing a game; that game
is the system that we have built, with exams and formal testing being at the heart of it. We measure
success by how well the students can master our system, rather than how they are developing as
individuals. Students frequently answer the questions that we set for them, rather than those that they
pose themselves:
“…we are like tourists, not seeing the Eiffel Tower or Half Dome but testing it against the…images
that have already defined the thing for us.”
(Tagg, 2003:135)
Emergent question: in what ways do we instil a spirit of enquiry in our students from the point at
which they join the University?
2. Frequent, connected, “authentic” student performance.
Tagg (2003: 155) suggests that frequent, continuous and connected performance is critical for effective
learning: we learn by doing, and we learn most effectively if the activities were engage with are
authentic. He proposes that learning become intrinsically more rewarding when students get more
ownership of ideas and concepts which are new, at least to them. Developing the links between research
and teaching, particularly in a research-intensive university such as Aberdeen, provides opportunities to
create authentic, “research-like” teaching; generating environments in which students might develop and
investigate their own questions about the subject.
Emergent question: to what extent do we have to be teaching “cutting edge” research materials and
methods in order to instil the qualities of a researcher in our students?
3. Consistent, continual, interactive feedback to students.
“Feedback is defined by its relationship to contemplated future actions.” (Tagg, 2003: 186).
Feedback is an essential process in supporting learning at all levels. It is forward-looking; there must be
some opportunity to act on feedback provided, else the opportunity to learn from it is at best minimised.
Giving feedback early in a course provides students with the opportunity to do something about their
performance, or to gauge their progress. Anecdotal evidence suggests that much feedback is provided at
a stage where it is too late for the student to do anything about it, for example when the course has
finished. In terms of course and programme design, the issue of feedback is inexorably bound up with
assessment, either summative or formative. Assessment is probably the main driver of student learning.
If this is the case, then are opportunities being made available for feedback throughout courses and
programmes, at the most appropriate and useful points for the student?
Emergent question: what opportunities exist to provide more feedback to students early in courses,
that don’t have to be tied to a formal (and time-intensive for staff) assessment?
4. A long time horizon for learning.
With the benefit of hindsight, it is more straightforward for staff to know what aspects of a subject will
be important for their students in the future. Staff are in the position of being able to lay the foundations
of learning over a longer period than students, particularly younger students, are often able to see.
However, with the limitations of course and programme length, it can be difficult to create a learning
environment in which the longer term implications of what is being learned can be fully appreciated, and
linkages explored. With students motivated by the short-term goal of passing an examination, rather
than thinking about the longer term implications of what they are being encouraged to learn, then the
horizon for learning is necessarily short. Thus “surface” learning and factual recall is implicitly
encouraged in order to pass the exam and move on.
Intrinsic goals (see 1) don’t have a short timeline (Tagg, 2003: 219). One only has to envisage a hobby
or pastime to appreciate that we don’t deliberately finish becoming “better” at something we care about
unless we deliberately give up.
Emergent questions: how can we apply a similar way of thinking to the way we encourage our
learners? Do meaningful tasks easily fit into the time we have available to teach?
5. Purposeful communities of practice: legitimate, peripheral participation.
Students and staff operate in groups, families and teams when outside academia. Whilst groupwork is
used in many, if not all parts of the University, final performance is still dominated by the “single
assessment, single mark” system. Tagg questions the authenticity of the environment created in many
H.E. institutions, and raises the idea that, in order to encourage greater engagement, the idea of
“legitimate, peripheral participation” be explored. This he defines as kind of apprenticeship, gradually
introducing newcomers to the practices used by expert practitioners in the field. The difference between
subject and discipline is critical here, and one explored more fully by Parker (2002).
Context and application of learning are key points here, and Tagg usefully raises the point that students
who live together, or who have strong peer groups (e.g. those participating in residential sessions,
fieldwork etc.) tend to have a stronger sense of “belonging” than other groups, again due in part to the
collaborative nature of the tasks they perform.
Emergent question: how can we use these ideas to encourage further engagement and a sense of
belonging, both institutionally and within large degree classes, especially at levels 1 & 2?
References
Locks, A., Hurtado, S., Bowman, N. & Osegura, L. 2008. Extending notions of campus climate and
diversity to students’ transition to College. The Review of Higher Education 31 (3), 257-285
Parker, J. 2002. A new disciplinarity: communities of knowledge, learning and practice. Teaching in Higher
Education 7 (4), 373-386.
Tagg, J. 2003. The Learning Paradigm College. (Anker Publishing, Boston MA). 379pp.