Reflections on the Technology Enhanced Education Conference (Cardiff)

08May11

On Friday, I attended a technology enhanced education conference at my instutition, and this post is my reflection on the day.

The conference was split into four sections, each on a theme. The first session involved discussions on strategies and the student voice and benefited enormously from the presence of a confident and erudite panel of students who talked about their expectations and experiences of university life at Cardiff. A lengthy discussion on feedback was particularly interesting for me, especially the discussion on a greater need for a more effective and consistent level of feedback, as this joins smoothly with some of the questions we have been asking in the electronic marking pilot project currently running at the university (and which I co-ordinate).

If there was one suggestion for future conferences it would be to have a student panel attending the whole conference, instead of just one session, as their experiences are so critical to the discussions at hand; that is, of course, assuming they would be willing to hang out all day with the OAPs (*conference in-joke*). I spotted several people in the Twitter back channel mentioning the desire for more student input e.g. @SarahNicholas, @LucyLibrarian, @drkellypage

The main focus of the second session was on group projects and collaboration, with examples from two different arenas. It was interesting that journalism students were not interested in using wikis, but most were happy to participate in Facebook groups. I understand a lot of this was about convenience, students would prefer not to have yet another place to check, and there has to be something there to draw them. For the journalism students checking student email and logging in to the VLE for the wiki did not work well. They preferred a different method for their group working, in this case, a place many of them already check regularly. For business students, they came to the wiki because they knew that was where they would be able to communicate with the teacher and with their fellow learners.

What this said to me was – you don’t necessarily have to go to where students already are, but if you don’t, you do have to draw them to where you are. Give them a reason to be there (if that’s where the learning is at, make sure they know it).

The third session was a debate on open vs walled gardens in education. There was much discussion (and disagreement) on this with the key points for me being – a walled garden allows student to make mistakes in a safe space, an open environment allows students to easily connect with an external (professional) community. Perhaps, then, it’s really about what is the chief need for the specific subject, or topic, or group of students?

One other point in this debate, what is/should be the role universities play in student’s understanding of their social presence online? My own opinion is that, if we already teach them about professionalism (and it’s clear this doesn’t stop at the end of the working day, but continues into their social life), then I think we need to be helping students understand that this professionalism is important in both their offline and online social presences. Unfortunately, I had to leave before this session ended to set up for a demo, but I do wish I could have stayed to hear the whole discussion!

The final session focussed on whether the traditional lecture provides the best learning experience for students, and the facilitators of the session provided a different method of delivery to help us explore this idea. It was called a ‘fishbowl’. A panel of people (these could be ‘experts’) gather at the front to begin discussing a topic, the rest of the audience listens in to the discussion – a little like a fly on the wall. At any point, a member of the audience can tap a panel member on the shoulder and take their place, if they wish to be part of the discussion. A suggested framework for this method might be – students are provided with readings or a presentation online with they watch before attending the ‘teaching’ session. In the ‘teaching’ session a ‘fishbowl’ then takes place to allow students to discuss the concepts introduced to them in their pre-session readings/presentation.

During the session, I felt this was an effective method of learning. I was entertained and stimulated by the conversation, though I don’t know how much of this was the novelty of the method. I do have reservations about whether students would feel confident enough to tap a shoulder and become part of the discussion. Perhaps the method could be adapted somewhat, e.g. the presence of a facilitator outside the main group to suggest to the panel that they discuss points that come in via a back channel, which begins to include those students who would rather not become a part of the ‘main’ group. I don’t think I’m yet convinced what could work, but would love to see some evidence of the fishbowl method being used in education and what kind of feedback students give on it.

To wrap up my post I just wanted to make one final comment. I was impressed by the gamble taken by colleagues Simon Wood and Joe Nicholls to make the conference largely discussion-based, rather than presentation-lecture based. It really paid off. I felt I could choose to be part of the conversation if I wished. Less passive and more interactive, this worked well for my cognitive processes. I assimiliated more and remembered more.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  3 Comments