This paper was again focused around a writing/ media studies class. Students usually wrote traditional essays which made shaping their work bound by the printed text and the two presenters wanted to change this approach. They chose to use Prezi to get students draft a collaborative piece of work to provide more flexibility and get students used to different media approaches.

Students were divided into two groups and were given an assignment to write which was an analytical paper and they had to use Prezi to create it. One group were able to use images, shapes, videos, and animation, and the other group, were only able to use only text, shapes, and the effects that the software provided to convey their ideas.

The presenters found that students still organised their work in a similar way to text with headings and their placement of material was similar. The text formatting was also similar with use of colour etc. However students in group one used visuals to reinforce points and provide evidence and in the second group they used boxes and arrows to reinforce points. The use of prezi had made the students writing more visual.

This was a first use of this and so for future the presenters are going to change the assessment and use the normal rubrics with some changes to assess the work.

Robin had undertaken her study because she wanted to explore How to help students develop into “more purposeful, self-directed learners” (Hutchings & Shulman 1999:11).This was a course on writing.

Robin had two groups of students that she undertook some research with. All her students are not traditional University students they are all considered at risk in this setting in terms of achievement and they come from racially, socially and economic diverse groups.

Group one had 17 students and Robin had taught them the previous term and so for this term she taught them the same way with seven weeks of short lectures, active learning activities and writing workshops as time permitted.

Group two had 18 students and this was their first course and so Robin wanted to use the “flipped” classroom with them. These students had seven weeks of videos that they needed to watch prior to each class and then class time was used for active learning activities and writing workshops.

Robin then collected data from the flipped group only about their learning through an anonymous online surveymonkey questionnaire which had 13 likert scale type questions and she collected data from blackboard the VLE around student activity. Results were:

• 88% of students either did or mostly viewed the videos
• 78% mostly or did give the videos their full attention
• 33% most of the time took notes and 61% sometimes did

They were also asked to use statements to describe how they watched/used the videos

• 83% enjoyed the videos as much as class lectures
• 88% said they understood the material much better
• 100% said they liked using the time in class to do activities and ask questions

There were also some qualitative comments about using the videos which included they liked stopping the videos to take notes, they liked being able to re-watch the videos and it made them more responsible for their learning.

Robin also looked at the results and these students needed to gain a C to pass. In the traditional class all students either got C- or C and in the flipped class all students got a C or a C+. Robin knows that further work is needed to show any effect.

The conclusions from this work were that this change to “flipped” learning allowed the lecturer to incorporate more active learning, students were generally positive about this and their results were at least as good and, the classroom had positive dynamics and increased interaction.

In terms of Weimer’s (2002) five dimensions of learner-centred teaching this study had met the first four of

• Balance of power – this was more equal
• Function of the content – students were able to draw on knowledge from the videos
• Role of the instructor – changed to be more facilitator
• Responsibility for learning – students felt more responsible

The fifth dimension was around purposes and processes of assessment and at present Robin had made no changes to this so could not include this.

Hutchings P & Shulman L (1999) The scholarship of teaching: New elaborations, new developments Change 31 (5) p10-15

Weimer M (2002, 2013) Learner-centred teaching: Five key changes to practice San Francisco CA Jossey-Bass

This presented has undertaken doctoral work around learning spaces and has used learning theory, composition pedagogy and the work of Thomas and Seely Brown (The New Culture of Learning, 2011) and Jos Boys (Towards Creative Learning Spaces, 2012).

Dana undertook a study of a newly designed room for first year writing which was a room with mobile chairs, desks, mobile whiteboards, multiple LCD screens and student mobile technology. The goals of the study were to increased flexible pedagogy and increased student engagement but there were also reductions in University costs because there was no need to maintain lab computers with students using their own mobile devices.

The method used for the research was ethnography with the question “How do the users perceive/use the space?” Participant observation and interviews were used alongside conceptual mapping where students were given the map of the blank classroom and cut outs of the furniture and asked to design their ideal classroom. Grounded theory was then used to analyse the data. Some preliminary results only were being presented.

Students’ perceptions of the classroom were that it facilitated interaction and “they got to know people better” but also it supported social territories with students sitting with their social group.

Lecturers’ perceptions were that this was a tool for engagement with students being able to face each other. The whiteboards were good because this made students move to them to work together and stopped them burying themselves in their laptops. However, the use of the lectern was still felt to be an issue they were around 6 foot across and were perceived by staff as creating a walled fortress. They wanted to move around.

The implications of these findings were that all felt group facilitation was supported, there was increased student/lecturer interactions and increased flexibility around the pedagogy BUT…

A new room was designed for the next term keeping the mobile furniture, whiteboards, LCD screens and different colours in the room but also they added rails on the wall to hang the whiteboards and they changed the lecterns so they were smaller around 3 foot and were placed in the corner of the room. They also provided a small table on wheels and chair for the lecturer so they could move around and join groups. This is now being evaluated.

Future plans are to provide lecturers with remote technology pads that work the lectern from anywhere in the room and to continue the research. One issue they also need to explore further is disabled students where some of these rooms are less flexible for them if in a wheelchair.

I was presenting a poster on the work that had been undertaken for the HEA change academy project for Recognising Teaching Excellence. There were two posters one was outlining the project objectives, activities undertaken to collect data and the themes and some criteria we had used for a first draft of a framework.

The second poster looked at how the criteria might be assessed and what recognition/awards might be given, how the work of those winning could be shared and future development of this project.

This was a two hour session and there were 60 posters being presented. I had lots of people coming to discuss the poster and our work and many asked for copies of the poster which I had on a hand out. In addition I have had a few people who have swopped cards so they can continue these conversations beyond the conference so this will be helpful as we move on with this.

This workshop focused on developing teaching and learning and SOTL in the professional context. They focused initially on the levels of investigation from Ashwin & Trigwell (2004) with a focus on level 2 where groups are informed within a shared context. This was linked to having identified two common trajectories of academics. The first was where individuals engage with colleagues in another context such as attending a national/international conference but then share none of this with colleagues in their own institution. The second trajectory was where individuals engage in discussions with colleagues both at external events but more importantly within their own context having conversations with colleagues.

They then also referred to Teaching and Learning regimes using the work of Trowler & Cooper (2002) and Trowler (2008, 2009). We were asked in groups to think about these 8 points and how they might work within our own setting.

This provided much discussion about how these regimes whilst being useful can also be constraining rather than empowering. Interdisciplinary groups coming together often want to explore their own regimes. We then discussed difficulties in shifting faculty from disciplinary teaching to SOTL.

The workshop then focused on sharing strategies that people had used which included:

• Interdisciplinary work common agreement that staff liked to discuss with others what they did and share practice
• Develop communities of practice focused on specific issues not problems
• Working with staff around scholarship and inquiry but using inquiry which is more acceptable to those with a focus on research
• Use clear language that is spelt out to all

The two presenters had been interested in the roles that education developers were undertaking today where many occupy marginal or liminal spaces between disciplines and undertook a study with 15 developers who were in five countries. Interviews were undertaken with these developers and these were analysed using grounded theory and oral history.

They discovered there were three key roles. Some felt that when working with what was termed more powerful groups they might undertake a “passing role” which meant they joined the group and changed their role and speech to get things done but they did not want to become assimilated because this was seen as a “sell out” to the group. There was then the intermediary role where most felt they predominantly worked and acted as brokers, translators and mediators. The last role was that of being an advocate and this was used with those who were seen as less powerful as a group and so needed someone to advocate for them.

The presenters agreed this was early research into these roles and would be doing further work on this.

There had been a new president at McMaster University two years ago who wrote to all staff about his future vision and the need to change teaching practice in response to the changing agenda. This includes students needs today, evolving technology, online education / blended and the need for research productivity. All these do mean there is some risk with change.

There are some key stages in responsible risk taking:

1. Desire the onus to change
2. Knowledge current theory and ethical issues
3. Understanding the consequences
4. Collaboration and co-operation

BUT public sector entrepreneurs face increased scrutiny.

The importance of culture is also key to change so issues around complexity, basic values and assumptions, behaviour under threat and resistance, persistence of existing culture and strategy and the need to have an evolving style of change. Change is messy but this can be good. The outcomes are often uncertain but emerge during the process.

There are helpful strategies to change such as having a critical mass of champions, linking objectives to goals, allowing others to define the path and different climates and subcultures. Resistance however is linked to striving to minimise loss and people will work harder to minimise loss rather than work for gains.

The presenters undertook a study to assess appetite for risk and change, what the perceived barriers were and enablers. This was through an anonymous online survey across a sample of faulty there were 80 in the sample and the response rate was 47 (59%).

The data showed that of this sample most taught 3-4 course a year but many (more than 50%) taught 8 courses. The class size varied from 50 – 200 students. When asked about teaching approaches most (94%) said their most used approach was lectures. However 80% had made a change to their teaching approach in the last three years and 60% had thought about making a change but had not. Most were comfortable with the idea of making the change but needed time and access to pedagogical research to undertake this. 66% said they were not encouraged to make changes and 72% felt that change had risk attached and their primary concern was so what if this did not work?

It is acknowledged this study was small but the findings were valuable to gain some insight and, alongside the literature was used to develop a series of strategies that could be used to facilitate a culture of responsible risk-taking at the institution. These include ensure the vision is clear, there are champions and junior and senior staff mentor each other.

Lee talked about the importance of researching actual teaching practice if you are really interested in teaching and learning. However he also noted that there is a tendency to view situated research such as SOTL as a diminished form of scholarship when contrasted with the mainstream kinds of research published in social science or educational research journals.

Lee raised several points that we should all be using to make this view change. Teaching portfolios were seen as being particularly important in reflecting on practice and being a tool for peer review. They were a tool to be asking the questions we had and to follow through those thoughts until they form into a question for research or inquiry.

Gold Standard research is seen as involving random trials, often large numbers and an ability to generalise. Educational research however is small scale, often action research and mostly qualitative where generalisation is not possible but this is not what educational research is about it is about situated learning. Lee mentions Cronbach and the fact he is the greatest educational research methodologist. What is important about educational research is that there is factual detail provided, that data is outlined clearly and then analyse. The story must be clear to others.

Lee outlines three key items of evidence he believes are important for our research:

• Evidence 1 – results of studies already available
• Evidence 2 – Collect local data repeatedly
• Evidence 3 – product versus process approach where practical judgement ideas end up in the reasoning we do and combining our intuition

Generalisations are not useful in educational research because they decay as the context changes. This is why iterative research is needed. Powerful ideas come from how to improve teaching and learning and the importance of situated research cannot be under estimated.

Lee finished with his view that he undertakes inquiry “to know more when I’m done than when I started”.

This plenary was moderated by Randy Bass and featured Ignite presentations by each of the speakers (follow these link for more on Ignite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignite_(event) and http://igniteshow.com/ )

As the opening plenary there were three themes which were the focus of the three presenters. Jessie Moore discussed the Foundations in SOTL and the importance of reflective practitioners in this field. Jessie then discussed the developing literature in the field but that many still did not know about this and how those present needed to help their colleagues become aware of this. The challenges of bridging continents was discussed and then a mention of SOTL being about collective inquiry.

Chris Anson then moved to a discussion around studying and designing for transfer of learning and our work and this takes place. Then lastly Jennifer Hill talks about student voices in SOTL. Jennifer talked about the importance of developing life skills in our students but also enlightening them. However we should not expect this to happen without engaging students in this. This is a challenge but if started small and then built upon it can be successful and energising. Students need to be involved in developments and the creation of a product but then should also be involved in the end going public process. Jennifer also discussed the importance of space for these conversations and said “the best SOTL is to unite student and faculty voices to work together.” One important approach that Jennifer has been using is on the first day of meeting students rather than introducing the subject she teaches she gets the students to consider what sort of a learner they want to be and how they will contribute to their learning process.

As a programme leader this speaker wanted to have students complete a portfolio to help bridge the theory practice gap. There were some national standards for teacher education which fitted well with this and there was a desire to develop lifelong learning characteristics in students. There were seven standards with 37 descriptors. The standards focused on three main areas, 1 on knowing students and how they learn, 2 on knowing the content and how to teach it and 3 planning to teach and implementation.  Students were expected to be proficient against these standards after one year of teaching and the portfolio would enable students to continue to collect evidence. This enables staff to apply to be recognised as highly accomplished or a lead which at present is voluntary but may be compulsory in the future.

A range of digital portfolios were explored but Mahara was chosen. This is a free digital portfolio which enables you to use photos as well as text. You make links between aspects of the portfolio and you can share the portfolio. There is a need to ensure ethical issues of discussing class activities are understood. The portfolio also enables you to add a CV and link to papers and presentations. One disadvantage is that there are some space issues with Mahara once you have added a lot of information, pictures and text.