HEA 2017 Annual conference: Generation TEF

A couple of weeks after attending the European Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN) conference, I attended a UK Higher Education Academy conference that took place in Manchester between 4 July and 6 July 2017. In some respects, it was good to attend both events so close together, since ideas from the first conference were still at the forefront of my mind when I attended the second.

What follows is a conference of report of the HEA event. Like all of these conference reports, they represent my own personal views of the event; different delegates, of course, would have very different experiences. I should add that I attended two of the days: one that concentrated on STEM education, and the other that was more general.

The second day of the conference was opened by HEA chief executive Stephanie Marshall. Stephanie noted that this was the first annual conference for three years. She also hinted at the scale of the HEA, reporting that there were now ninety thousand fellows. A key point was that ‘teaching excellence is a global ambition’ and that discussions about the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) has been dominating recent debates within higher education. The notion of the fellowship was an attribute that can change university cultures to foreground the importance of teaching. Other issues that I noted were the importance of student engagement, student satisfaction, student retention and the idea of creating a ‘connected curriculum’.

Keynote: How digital engagement enhances the student experience

The opening keynote was by Eric Stoller. Eric has built a consultancy about using technology and social media to create digital engagement, with a particular emphasis on higher education.

I’ve noted that Eric said that there are social media skeptics and that social media is a subject that can be polarising. There was the suggestion that social media is all about learning, and the learning doesn’t stop when students leave the classroom. A point I noted was ‘life-long learning should be at the heart of the experience’; this is especially interesting since the life-long learning agenda within my own institution has been fundamentally impoverished due to government increases of tuition fees. It is now harder to study for an entirely different qualification, or to study a module or two with the intention of developing skills that are important in the workplace.

We were presented with a series of questions. One of them was: can social media be used for critical thinking? Perhaps it can. Information literacy is an important and necessary skill when we are faced with working out what news is fake, and what news isn’t. Other questions were: how do we use social media to build communities? Also, how do we connect to others when there’s one of ‘you’ and lots of ‘them’? In answer to ‘how’ you ‘do’ engagement through social media, I remembered that one of my colleagues, Andrew Smith gave a talk entitled ‘how our classroom has escaped’ at The Open University about how to use some social media tools (specifically Twitter) to reach out to computer networking students.

Another broad question was about digital literacy and capability. This immediately relates to another question: is there a benchmark for digital capabilities? A challenge about this perspective is one that Eric mentioned, which is: different people use social media in different ways. Another question was: how about addressing the subject of social media in staff appraisals?

A theme that appears regularly is that of employability. Perhaps lecturers should be ‘role modelling’ to students about how to use social media, since these can and do have implications for employability. Social media can be used to engage students as they become acclimatised to working within a particular institution, helping them through their first few weeks of study.

As Eric was speaking, I had my own thoughts: one way to see social media is a beginning point for further engagement with students; it can be used to expose issues and debates; it should, of course, be a beginning point and not be an end in itself. There are other issues: what are the motivations and incentives for the use of social media amongst different communities?

Day 2: Morning Sessions

The first session of the day was by Anna Hunter from the University of Central Lancashire. Anna’s talk was entitled: ‘What does teaching excellence look like? Exploring the concept of the ideal teacher through visual metaphor’. I was interested in attending this session since I have an interest in associate lecturer continuing professional development, and Anna was going to be talking about her work on a PGCE in HE module (which is a subject that has been on my mind recently). Some of the activities echoed my own experience as a PGCE student; activities to explore views and opinions about teaching and thinking about the notion of academic identity. I noted down a question that was about team teaching, but I didn’t note down the response; the issue of how to facilitate and develop team teaching practice remains both an interest and a question.

Kath Botham from Manchester Metropolitan University gave a presentation that was also in the form of question: Is an institutional CPD scheme aligned to the UK PSF and HEA Fellowship an effective tool to influence teaching practice? Kath’s research was a mixed method approach that aimed to assess the impact of the various fellowship awards. Some practitioners wanted the ‘HEA badge’ to be seen and recognised as someone involved in teaching and learning’. It is viewed as something to validate practice. Also, gaining accreditation is something that can help lecturers and teachers overcome ‘imposter syndrome’. The question remains: does accreditation change practice? Accreditation can help people to engage with reflection, it can represent an important aspect of CPD and can stimulate personal skills and study development.

Day 2: Afternoon Sessions

After attending a series of short five minute ‘ignite’ sessions, I couldn’t help but attend: ‘Removing the elephant from the room: How to use observation to transform teaching’ by Matt O’Leary and Mark O’Hara who were both from Birmingham City University. This presentation directly linked to the theme of the conference and to a university funded project that is all about online and face to face tutorial observations. We were treated to a literature review, and introduced to a six stages of an observation cycle: (1) observe self-reflection, (2) a pre-observation meeting, (3) observation, (4) post-observation reflection, (5) post-observation dialog, and (6) observee and observed post-observation reflective write up. I also noted down that there was an observer training and development sessions. Another note (which I assume is about the feedback) was: ‘we chose a blank page approach; we don’t want to forms corrupting what we see’, which reflects observation reports that I have personally received. The closing points were important; they spoke about the importance of management buy-in, that there is anxiety in the process, and there needs to be time to have conversations.

Rebecca Bushell from the University of South Wales asked: Can innovative teaching techniques effectively improve engagement, retention, progression and performance? Rebecca’s innovative technique was to ask her students to create businesses that are funded using micro-capital (student groups were given fifty pounds each). The points were that this was immersive problem based learning that allowed students to share experience. It also allowed to reflect on their experience, and it created learning situations for students on other modules; accounting students were asked to audit their accounts. For me, the take away point was: simulations can expose real challenges that can immediately relate to the development of employability skills.

Day 3: Opening Keynote

The final day of the conference was opened by Giskin Day from Imperial College London. Giskin taught a Medical humanities course which was all about Putting medicine in a social and cultural context. It is a course that explores the connections between the arts and science, with an emphasis on creativity.

An interesting point that I noted was that much of science is about minimising risk and beating uncertainty. With this context in mind, how can we encourage students to tolerate and manage ambiguity? This, of course, is an important skill in higher education; it is something that is explicitly explored within the humanities, where students are encouraged to be ‘creatively critical and critically creative’.

Another point is that there is a change in student expectation: students are no longer willing to be ‘talked at’, which is something that was echoed within my recent blog summary from the recent EDEN conference that I attended. A question remains: how do we engage students in new ways? One approach is to consider ‘playful learning’ (the notion of games and gaming was, again, something that featured within EDEN). Games, Giskin argued, enable students to develop empathy; they allow students to enter into a safe imaginative space where failure is an option and a possibility.

We were introduced to a speed dating card exchange game that had a medical theme. As a part of her teaching, we were told about a field trip to the V&A museum that was connected to skin, sculpture and dermatology. Students had to find exhibits within the museum and had to decide whether the sculpture needed a medical diagnosis, developing student’s communication, sketching and observation skills. Other games involved role playing where students played the roles of doctor and consultants. There was talk of escape rooms and creative puzzle solving.

Giskin offered some tips about creating effective games: consider the audience, make sure that things are tested, and think about a balance of playfulness and usefulness whilst also asking questions about what would motivate the student players. Also, when planning a ‘game’, always consider a ‘plan B’, since things might change in the real world; a game-based field trip to a museum might become unstuck if a museum suddenly loans an artefact to another institution.

In some respects, Giskin’s presentation was in two parts: the first part was about games; the second part was about her research about the rhetoric of gratitude in healthcare (Imperial College). Her point was simple: grateful people want to express gratitude; it is a part of closure, and an acknowledgement of that expression. The language used with both patients, and with challenging students is very important. I noted down the importance of moving from a rhetoric of coercion to a rhetoric of collaboration.

During the question and answer session, I think Giskin referred to something called the Playful learning Special Interest group(Association for Learning Technology). I found this interesting, since the introduction to design module, U101 Design Thinking uses both the idea of play, and explores design through the development of a game.

I enjoyed Giskin’s reference to different types of learning approaches; her references to field trips and role play echoes various teaching approaches that I have tried to adopt. During a moment of inspiration I once spontaneously ran a field trip to a university corridor to encourage a set of design students to look at a set of recycling bins! Hearing about other practitioners such as Giskin developing a systematic and more comprehensive approach to designing field trips offers real inspiration and insight into how to develop interesting and entertaining learning events. I remain wondering how to embed these different approaches into a distance learning context.

Towards the end of Giskin’s session, we were each given different postcards, and we were asked to write down the response to a simple question: ‘what teaching and learning tip were you grateful to receive?’ Our challenge was to find the same card as another delegate and swap tips. When I found another delegate that had the same card as mine, a card that had some drawings of some craft tools, I made a point of offering a grateful thank you, which was, I believe, graciously received.

Day 3 : Morning Sessions

During the morning, I moved between different sessions to catch various presentations. The first talk of the morning was by Nagamani Bora, University of Nottingham, who spoke about ‘Curriculum Design – Opportunities and Challenges’. There were references to employability, interdisciplinary and the notion of the spiral curriculum (which was recently mentioned during my PGCE in HE studies). Other points included the importance of involving students in curriculum design and introducing them to international and global perspectives. An interesting point was made about the question of programme level assessments.

Siobhan Devlin who was from the University of Sunderland spoke about ‘Engaging learners with authentic assessment scenarios in computing’. Interestingly, Siobhan spoke about the ‘demodularised curriculum’; bigger chunks of curriculum were considered to be the order of the day. A key point was that authentic assessment needs to reflect real world practices. Siobhan also referenced some of her earlier research that asked the question: what does inspiring teaching look like? Some key attributes I noted were: enthusiasm, passion, adaptability, empathy, friendliness and enjoyment. I also noted down a reference to Keller’s ARCS model of motivation (e-learning industry).

Day 3 : Afternoon Sessions

Christine Gausden, University of Greenwich, continued to touch on the authentic in her talk ‘Embedding Employability within the Curriculum’. Christine is a senior lecturer in the built environment and said that although students might have technical knowledge, they may lack the opportunity to apply that knowledge. To overcome this, practitioners were asked to talk to students, and students were asked to study real live construction project, which links to the earlier point of authenticity.

After Christine’s talk, I switched sessions to listen to Dawn Theresa Nicholson and Kathryn Botham from the Manchester Metropolitan University talk about ‘Embedding Reasonable Adjustments in the Curriculum (ERAC): A Faculty-wide approach to inclusive teaching’, which relates to my own experience of tutoring on an Open University module called Accessible online learning: supporting disabled students(Open University website). The idea was to embed accessibility in the curriculum (MMU) to such an extent so that personal learning plans could be phased out completely. A solution was to look at what adjustments were being applied, provide a set of standard adjustment and to offer staff training. An important principle was to make sure that all learning materials were available online in advance of a session.

Carol Calvert, a staff tutor colleague from The Open University talked about ‘Success against the odds’. A key driver the research was the principle of student retention; it was hoped that the project would suggest actions to help students to complete their studies. The key research question was: ‘what can students who we think may not succeed, who have been able to succeed, able to tell us?’ Factors that might suggest challenges include: previous study success, socio-economic status, and level of prior educational attainment. Students offered some pointers: (1) that it was important to start early, (2) that it is important to share and to get network (and to tell other people that you are studying), (3) use a study planner.

To conclude, students that do succeed have a can do attitude. The important question is: how can we foster this from a distance? There were some accompanying actions: the module team could take time to introduce the module and gives students some useful study tips. Another action is to ask students whether they wanted to start study early and then try to make this happen. When asked, it turned out that half of the students on Carol’s module said that they might want to do this.

The final presentation I attended was given by my colleague, David Morse. David talked about ‘Truly virtual teams: twelve years on’. It isn’t a surprise to hear that students don’t like team working, but David made the point that group working is an important element of the QAA computing subject benchmark statement. Twelve years earlier, things were different: students didn’t have broadband, but online collaboration is more about people than it is about the details that surround particular technologies. A question is: what must students do? They must set rules, roles and responsibilities. They must also identify knowledge and skills, make regular contributions to online discussions, give and receive criticism, and apply good netiquette. A tutor needs to be a facilitator and not a manager. A tutor also needs to know when to step forward and when to step back. In response to this, David presented an interesting helical model of team working (which reminded me of a spiral model that had been mentioned earlier during the conference).


I like HEA conferences; they’re always well run, they are interesting and relevant, and represent a great opportunity for networking. In comparison to other HEA events that I had attended this one had a slightly different feel. I think this difference is due to two reasons; the first is the sheer scale of the event. Secondly, due to the fact that it was very interdisciplinary. Whilst I always enjoy meeting people who work in other subjects, I did feel that the sheer scale of the conference made it a more difficult event to navigate and choose the sessions that looked to be the most relevant. These things said, I did feel that the keynotes were well chosen and well presented. The second keynote stood out as being particularly thought provoking, which is exactly what keynote sessions should be.

During the workshop, I also facilitated a session about module design with my colleague, Ann Walshe. We offered a space where delegates could be creative and design their ‘ideal’ or ‘perfect’ module. The resulting designs were fun and playful, and make significant use of different technologies that had been mentioned during the first keynote.

I’m going to conclude with a more personal reflection. This conference took place in the grounds of the university that was once known as UMIST, which was where I studied as a doctoral student. Wandering around the campus brought back many memories; I remembered how challenging it was. I was trying to conduct research into what was a very specific aspect of computing: theoretical models of how programmers go about understanding software code. I remembered how difficult it was having a part time job whilst at the same time as being a full time student. I also remembered how alone I felt, and this underlined the importance of community, which was also a topic that had arisen during the various sessions.

It not only struck me that community was really important for researchers, but it is also really important as a way to facilitate excellent teaching too; teachers and lecturers need to talk to other teachers and lecturers. In some ways, this was, ultimately, what the conference was all about.

(A version of this blog was published on Chris Douce’s personal Staff Tutor and OU work blog).

Posted in conference | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

SEAT member Ray Corrigan took part in a panel on the draft Investigatory Powers Bill at Cambridge University in February. Follow the link below for more information and to view the presentations.

Oversight or Theatre? Surveillance and Democratic Accountability – Panel 2: Internet Connection Records

Posted in Welcome | Leave a comment

OU represented at JSEET 2015

In sunny Florence last May, ICSE 2015 saw the birth of JSEET 2015 (http://2015.icse-conferences.org/call-dates/call-for-contributions/jseet), a new Joint Program merging the ICSE Software Engineering Education and Training Track (SEET) and the Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training (CSEE&T) communities. The OU was well represented with two publications from the Computing and Communications department outlining recent innovations in our Software Engineering (SE) offering both at undergraduate and postgraduate levels:

  • Michel Wermelinger, Jon Hall, Lucia Rapanotti, Leonor Barroca, Magnus Ramage, and Arosha Bandara. Teaching software systems thinking at the Open University. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (Joint Software Engineering Education and Training track), Florence, Italy, May 2015. IEEE Press.


  • Jon Hall and Lucia Rapanotti. Masters-level software engineering education and the enriched student context. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering (Joint Software Engineering Education and Training track), Florence, Italy, May 2015. IEEE Press.

Among the things which caught my interest was Barry Boehm and Supannika K. Mobasser’s work on “System Thinking: Educating T-Shaped Software Engineers,” which very much echoed our ethos of educating software engineers to be both technically competent and “prepared to participate in the increasing numbers of projects involving multi-discipline system thinking, and in strong need of software skills.” In fact, there was a distinctive systems flavour across the whole of ICSE, which, I must admit, was a lot less “nerdy” than I remembered from previous editions.

Another highlight was the panel discussion on Industry/University Collaboration in Software Engineering Education led by Nancy R. Mead (CMU), with much comparing of notes and reflecting on our strategies.

Also, for those among us with an interest in coding skills, Judith Bishop (Microsoft Research) presented Code Hunt (https://www.codehunt.com), a gaming platform which “enables players to program against the computer with clues provided as unit tests” and how it has been used to run coding context at scale, something the OU may well have an interest in.

Overall, it was great to see SE education on an equal footing with SE research and practice at ICSE this year and to be able to mingle with people who were equally passionated about both. I can also see so much more of our work being represented at this premier SE conference in the years to come.

Posted in Welcome | Leave a comment

CfP: The Difference That Makes a Difference 2015, Vienna

Members of the group (David Chapman, Magnus Ramage and Mustafa Ali, along with colleagues from Engineering & Innovation and Religious Studies) are organising an international conference in June 2015. The conference, The Difference That Makes a Difference 2015, is the third in a series of biennial conferences on the nature of information. The theme of this event is Information and values: ethics, spirituality and religion. As well as leading to new insights into ethics, spirituality and religion, this work also acts as a further lens through which to explore the nature of information. It forms part of a larger summit on information organised by the International Society for Information Studies, held on the 3rd-7th June in Vienna. The call for papers is now open.

Posted in Welcome | Leave a comment

Interpreting the Information Age Report

A report of the Science Museum’s Interpreting the Information Age conference, where Chris Bissell and Allan Jones, presented papers can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/kpge34k

Posted in Welcome | Leave a comment

Interpreting the Information Age, Science Museum, 3-5 Nov. 2014

Allan Jones and Chris Bissell, of SEAT, will be talking at the Interpreting the Information Age conference at the Science Museum, London, 3-5 November 2014.


Allan’s presentation is

‘”A robot caught in the act of performing a goose-step”: early coverage of computers, artificial intelligence and information theory on BBC radio’

The title quotes from a BBC broadcast given by the philosopher Wolfe Mays in 1956.

Chris’s presentation is:

‘Interpreting the Information Age: Can We Avoid Anglocentrism’.

Posted in Welcome | Leave a comment

Engaging Research seminar: Allan Jones’s presentation

I was flattered a couple of months ago to be invited by Richard Holliman to speak in the ‘Engaging Research’ seminar series, hosted in the Science Faculty of the Open University. My presentation, on 8 September 2014, was recorded and can be viewed via the link below. It concerns a series of science broadcasts called ‘Science in the Making’ given on the BBC in the early 1930s. This presentation a longer version of the one I gave a few days earlier at the Sixth Conference of the European Society for the History of Science. (See blog post lower down this page.)


Posted in Welcome | Leave a comment

Sixth Conference of the European Society for the History of Science (ESHS), Lisbon, 4-6 September 2014

Allan Jones writes:

I was fortunate to be able to attend and present a paper at the Sixth Conference of the ESHS in Lisbon (4-6 September 2014), where the conference theme was ‘Communicating Science, Technology and Medicine’. Academic work on this topic has shifted in the last couple of decades from relatively straightforward story-telling about who said what to whom, when, and how’ to the more intriguing (and contentious) elucidation of how this form of social interaction serves sociological ends, in addition to its ostensible ends. To give just one example, debates about smoking and health in the 1950s and 1960s were not just about smoking and health, but were also part of a larger ethical controversy. Not that the papers at the ESHS conference (of which there were around 400) routinely touched on such incendiary topics.

One of the most interesting papers I heard was Jaume Navarro’s on the demise of the ether. Conventional histories of physics tell how the Michelson-Morley experiments of the 1870s and then Einstein’s theory of special relativity consigned the ether to the dustbin of science, along with phlogiston and vitalism. As always, the reality was more complex. Respectable physicists were still using the term ‘ether’ well into the twentieth century, and radio gave it a new lease of life. Marilena di Bucchianico’s paper in the same session on debates around high-temperature superconductivity fascinatingly showed how leading scientists in the field have completely different conceptions of what an explanation should consist of how it can be arrived at.

My own presentation was more prosaically concerned with a series of BBC radio broadcasts in the early 1930s entitled ‘Science in the Making,’ in which listeners were invited to report their own observations to the broadcasters. My next posting on this blog contains a link to a video of a longer version of the same presentation given at the Open University on 8 September.

Posted in Welcome | Leave a comment

And another paper at ISSEI 2014

As well as the presentation on ‘Measuring Information’ in the Information Workshop run by Chris Bissell, I gave a presentation on ‘Information and Religion’ in a workshop entitled Religion and Reason Facing Law and Science at ISSEI. (My presentation was originally accepted for a Workshop on ‘Science and Religion’ but that workshop was cancelled.)


Increasing numbers of workers in an ever-widening range of disciplines have been discovering that a theory of information provides new insights into their field.  Hans Christian von Baeyer, for example, argued in his 2003 book that information is the new language of science. Wolfgang Hofkirchner argues that our understanding of information is undergoing a paradigm shift with far-reaching consequences, and the philosopher of Information Luciano Floridi has put forward the thesis that information underpins a fourth revolution (following the three due to Copernicus, Darwin and Freud) which repositions our sense of identity. After the fourth revolution (which actually started the moment our ancestors painted on the walls of their caves) we are informational agents – inforgs – dispersed in an infosphere.

Albert Borgmann identified three roles for information: information about reality; information for reality and information as reality.  This presentation explores  information about, for and as religion.

Information about religion concerns the use of information-thinking to describe and understand religion. Gregory Bateson’s widely-cited definition of information as ‘a difference which makes a difference’ might itself be a description of religion. To be a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew…  is to be different from people who are not that:  and it makes a difference to your life. To an extent this is just saying that religion is about identity and identity is an informational concept, but understanding religious identity in terms of information brings with it new insights which potentially provide different ways of thinking about religion. I have argued elsewhere, for example, that information is inherently provisional: that it cannot ever be anything else but provisional. So religious identity, too, from an informational perspective, cannot be anything other than provisional.

Information for religion concerns information as a tool of religion. Borgmann discusses information for reality as specification: defining and shaping reality, and so, similarly, information defines and shapes religion.  Religious texts might be interpreted as the specification manuals of religions, but the unwritten traditions are information as well, and by understanding the nature of information we can look for insights into how religions are maintained and passed on from generation to generation.

Information is core to many religious formulations.  Creations stories, for example, recognise the role of the informational concepts of difference and identity, as in the Genesis description of God separating night from day and land from sea, and the first man, Adam, naming the animals.

More recently some writers have been exploring how ideas which subvert materialism/physicalism and emphasise the primacy of information might open doors to a world-view that aligns with religious formulations.

Information as religion, is information replacing religion or delivering a religion itself. For some writers information thinking provides the basis for something close to a grand narrative.  Hofkirchner, for example, seeks from an information science paradigm a new Weltanschauung: a new world-view; a new philosophy; a new way of thinking, and sees in this a route to addressing the global problems that arise from technological development, enabling a global, sustainable, information society. Information has been proposed as an alternative to religion as the basis of ethics, too. Floridi has spoken of an information ethics which “holds that every entity, as an expression of being, has a dignity, constituted by its mode of existence and essence” and that “there is something even more elemental than life, namely being […] and something even more fundamental than suffering, namely entropy”.

The potential scope of an exploration of the value of information ideas to religion is vast. This presentation suggests a framework for thinking about the field and points to a few specific examples.

Posted in workshop | Tagged , , | Leave a comment