Diverse generations of adults are now engaged in learning. Lifelong learning presents a challenge of how we connect to learners and facilitate how they connect to each other. Today there is the world of the digital degree or do it yourself degree where students can scan library resources, chat with academic staff on the internet, have tutorials in e-spaces, download lectures as podcasts and submit assessments online. They do not need to come to any face to face contact.  Student retention rates are an issue and so is there a link to the technology? Technology replaces human services in admissions, student hubs exist online, technology has replaced lectures and it is not as easy to develop a learning community.

The speaker had undertaken a literature review (Townsend 2014) but found there was no specific framework to follow around peer assessment. This led to some research to be undertaken that would provide some data that was relevant in terms of how students used technology to engage in peer discussions.  A mixed method study was planned and a focus group with 7 students was undertaken and using surveymonkey and a 28 item questionnaire 355 students were surveyed.

The focus group had 5 students who were 19-25 and 2 over the age of 39. Three key areas arose from the discussion with them which were communication, entertainment and accessibility. Students used social networking but wanted their own control and ownership. Design was crucial and networks were used to share ideas and incidental learning occurred. Students were concerned about the increased use of online learning and the ethical issues of privacy and security.

The survey had 71% female students and 28% males 1% who were transgender. Of these 54% preferred face to face learning, 34% blended learning. 33% of the students were part time. 90% used social media and 10% said they did not. 80% did however use facebook but this was general social purposes not for connecting with lecturers. Students used library, staff and peers to support their learning. Students felt face to face peer interaction was important and 80% felt this. 50% wanted on line peer learning too. There was a need to ensure there is sufficient time for peer facilitation.

There had been a grant to do this. They used the HEA internationalising higher education framework (2014). This took place in the US and grew from faculty interest. The project was a course design action research process and used Finks model as well but adapted this from 12 steps to 4.  There were also three principles used which were it was online, changing pedagogy and had technical phases.

The course has 3 modules which were:

• Module 1 introduction to flipping for 2 weeks
• Module 2 engaging students online and creating videos 2 weeks
• Module 3 engaging students in-class but online

Flipping is not just about the technology and there is a good resource from the University of Texas which can be found at the link http//ctl.utexas.edu/teaching/flipping-a-class

There is a need to consider the purpose of this change first and this team had a focus on PBL scenarios, videos, role play online application and reading materials.

There were lessons learnt such as rethinking the curriculum organisation. The faculty benefitted from reflection and students could chunk their learning. There was a need to focus on the bigger picture and the process. This has led to a rethink around academic development. Quality matters.

This was focused on a Business Management (BA) that offered both a 3 and 4 year option. Currently the intake was 60% international but it looks as though the September 2015 intake might be 70% international. The team of lecturers was also diverse coming from around 12 different countries. The key point that the team had found was that the students really did have diverse learning styles and cultural norms. They also wanted the students to gain more than just a degree. They had noted there issues around the lack of integration, engagement, appreciation of cultures, norms and values, there was an attainment gap and home students lacked mobility often not taking the four year option with a placement which might be abroad. The team decided they wanted to address these issues from the beginning and so started an online international learning project (OIL). They also made changes to other areas.

Induction week was week 0 and there was an academic skills module run as well. Students were encouraged from the beginning to be part of a mixed seminar group where they were not with friends and would find out about other cultures. They used ice breakers with them to encourage sharing of cultures so the ‘I am’ game. This required students to share:

• I am name…and a fact on who you are as a person
• I am … and focus on something about your social side
• I am… and concentrate on your cultural side
• I am … focus on nationality or ethnicity

There had been some increase in groups working together through targeting activities from induction and then using the online project to continue this.

Mark provided an overview of some points. The language used is an important factor and globalisation is not internationalising. Meanings of words, situations are not the same in all cultures and when planning the integration of cases studies and online materials you need to be sensitive to this. The curriculum is never neutral there is always a hidden curriculum and this is important. Who controls the curriculum is also of interest. Chemsky said that technology is not a neutral tool and Burble and Callister (2000) said that the tools shape us as we use them.

Education is transformative and should include reference to global and intercultural perspectives. There should be reference to learning to change and making a better future. There was reference to teaching and learning in a digital world and how programme redesigns needed to take this into account. The speaker also referred to the architecture of buildings and how these could also have cultural impact such as traditional lecture theatres which are very important in some countries still and the more innovative learning spaces used now by many UK institutions where students could work together in groups but some students might find this threatening.

Many examples were used of different cultures and some of the things that were both important to them and could be a concern. There was a discussion around how it is difficult to predict all this prior to students arriving but that we needed to develop greater insight into how to share our knowledge.

This conference was focused around education and emerging technology. The key note sessions focused on some of the opportunities that technology had provided for both education and technology developers. There was then a range of themes covered in the parallel sessions but of interest was the theme around smart education. There were sessions focused on gaming and how these has increasingly used in education as well as health and how developments in this area were enabling educators and developers to explore behaviour through learning analytics. There were sessions that looked at constructionist learning and how the use of technology has also been used to help students work with others to learn. There was a lot of discussion about how using technology had changed how students access information and how they use it. One session focused on the use of Suri to support language teaching and then others focused on online courses. There was a range of international speakers sharing their different experiences.

In this session Sandra demonstrated using webinar and desk top conferencing tools with the help of colleagues back in London. This session was very hands on and the participants were very keen to learn about the variety of tools available.

This session was very practical and was aimed at those attending getting the basics of “Polleverywhere”. Clickers have been used for some time but handing these out is time consuming as is giving them to students who might then loose them. Staff wanted to try bring your own device (BYOD) as so many students had ipads/smartphones/tablets.

In the spring of 2014 15 lecturers were involved in a pilot study which was successful and students and staff both found using this tool easy. There is a licence fee once more than forty students participate but it is worth having.

Helen had decided to do a flipped session and so posted some information onto blogs before the session and here is the link to these http://design-4-learning.blogspot.co.uk/

In addition there was some further information in the session as well as discussion in groups and using illuminate to bring in some others.

Helen suggests that often digital use can still be transmissive despite what we say and think.  The digital university can be a powerful lens but reflect on what real changes technology have brought about. Helen then identified some specific impacts of digital technology as she sees them and these were:

• Connectivity
• Ubiquity (almost)
• Intimacy
• Continuous record
• Data at a scale
• Learning situations are more porous or leaky
• Learners are simultaneously learning
• Learning events leave a persistent trace

Technologies can though allow some anonymity so you can be older or younger. Using technology means we can access more resources, version documents and share with others. However do students feel vulnerable what about emotions? So how can we minimise digital vulnerability? We can help learner move from closed to open digital spaces in their own time. We can model and nuture awareness, robustness and mutual care. We can take measures to redress digital disadvantage. We can explore but be alert for unintended consequences of open and borderless and bring our own practices and ensure students own their data.

Some online tools have poor sound/vision quality and technology still is a problem in terms of reliability and quality. Pedagogy should still be the first position when choosing a technology and learning is the key.

This study was undertaken with tutors and participants from a PG Certificate programme which was compulsory for all staff. There as a 10 credit module about e-journalling and identity and so the question for the study was What is the purpose of UK Higher Education and my role within it? This arose because the tutors when reviewing the journals felt that something was going on in terms of changes.

Ethical approval was sought and granted and grounded theory was used as an approach. The focus was on the journals but also how learning was facilitated by conversation. Again questions related to this were: How do you feel? How does this fit with your style of writing? What do you think?

 Personal relations in guiding learning journeys were important and so face to face meetings and phone calls helped move things forward.

There were 17 sets of data in the end. The issue of format for the writing and terms used were seen to be important. Initially the journals were formal but by the third this was less formal. There were also issues around if the tutor was from the same discipline and if they influenced the discussion.

More work will be done with other groups.

This poster was advertising some short online courses that had been developed for staff in response to staff not being able to attend face to face workshops easily with other commitments. As can be seen some of these are specifically focused on Twitter, LinkedIn or blogging and the 12 days of Christmas is focused on 12 educational apps. Although these have been developed for staff at Regents University London external staff can also participate.