Instead, our role in government is to enable universities to best meet our broader ambitions to improve productivity and social mobility. In my first HE speech last month, I outlined a vision for higher education by 2030 moving towards a unity of purpose. To make this vision a reality, it is important the relevant sector agencies also move towards a unity of purpose when it comes to supporting place-related developments. To this end, I welcome on-going cooperation and unity of purpose across Research England and the Office for Students (OfS). Between them, they can play a major role in improving our understanding of how students and teaching contribute to knowledge exchange activities and inform future strategies, including the Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF).
In this respect, I’m pleased to see the OfS has announced an expanded remit for the National Collaborative Outreach Programme (NCOP), which is aimed at boosting participation in local areas. I’m delighted the OfS has agreed in principle to provide funding to support the NCOP for the next two years – allowing universities and colleges across the country to come together and work with local schools to boost young people’s prospects. I recognise the concept of place is extremely important in the access and participation debate, and in my ‘civic university’ speech earlier this month, I called on the OfS to consider what more can be done to recognise and appreciate the many ways in which universities contribute to social mobility in their regions.
So, as UniversitiesMinister, I want to share with you my vision for the UK’s approach to ‘going global’ in higher education. And I hope that, from it, you will be able to draw out synergies with your own countries’ higher education systems, and identify opportunities for greater partnership with the UK and our world-leading institutions.
public trust in public institutions and the academy itself. In an age when so much that passes as information, but can all too often be misinformation, the university has a civic duty to instil in its students key attributes of curiosity, a respect for knowledge and a capacity for analysis, and constructive scepticism and questioning about what is presented as information as well as a willingness to listen to, and appreciate, a range of viewpoints. Universities should proactively engage with local communities, building more and stronger coalitions of support. They need to harness the power of social media to promote values of ethical behaviour, tolerance and inclusivity and take those arguments into the public arena and to those who feel marginalised and dispossessed and the communities where they live.
₹1138.65 billion in April 2019, of which ₹ 211.63 billion is Central GST. The figure for State GST stood at ₹288.01 billion, while Integrated GST for April 2019 stood at ₹547.33 billion. Demonetisation, which aimed mainly at tackling black money, corruption and terrorism (Pulla, 2016), of course, had a robust but short term impact on the cash economy, the unorganised sector and micro, small and medium businesses. Although, it remains unclear as to whether the government could accomplish its demonetisation goals; that none of the political parties had ‘curbing corruption’ in their election manifestos demonstrates that because of the tightening of regulations in the government institutions, the pace of corruption has been slowly declining.
Therefore, this special issue of IJLTER explores and outlines a wide array of research and practices around digi-pedagogical teaching and learning for the 21st century teaching, learning and learning environments. The articles of this Special Issue are based on an international call for the papers presented in Finnish Education Research Association (FERA) 2019 preconference Enhancing digi-pedagogical skills of higher education staff and change of learning environments, which took place in the fall of 2019 at the University of Eastern Finland in Joensuu, Finland. The guest editors of the Special Issue represent scholars from around Finland involved in ongoing collaboration for the higher education community. The seven original contributors of this Special Issue represent contentual, geographical and methodological diversity of the higher education community in Finland and internationally. We trust that the content of this special issue is of considerable interest to practitioners and researchers who seek new insight into higher education.
In this section, we look at national policy imperatives and incentives designed to promote university contributions to regional development in the UK, Sweden and Austria. These three countries were chosen because they are similar in their developmental levels and at the same time quite heterogeneous in their university populations, contexts and approaches, which is useful for informing both national strategies and large-scale supra-national programs that affect universities, such as Horizon 2020. The aim is to explore if and how policy institutions (i.e., imperatives and incentives in the form of funding schemes) in the three countries tend to “privilege” one of the university models identified in Section 2. Our main focus is on ‘third mission’ policy institutions. Arguably, many other policy institutions under various policy domains (such as science policy, research policy, education policy, economic policy, industrial policy) can support or constrain the regional impact of HEIs. Furthermore, not only policy institutions but many other factors (such as features of the university population, traditions, regional characteristics, and so on) may shape university contributions to regional development. It is, however, far beyond the scope of this paper to analyse the full spectrum of policies and factors that might exert an influence in this regard.
conducted to help provide direction for the researcher. Results from that focus group indicate that in-state students and out-of-state students may interpret “University of the people” differently and hence have conflicting perceptions about their responsibilities to the state of North Carolina. This notion directly points to a final limitation of the study, namely that it does not address the issue of causality. Understanding the cultural equipment at UNC and how it prompts the institution to act as a civically responsible role model does not necessarily preclude that UNC students are receptive to or influenced by this modeling. It may be logical to think, however, that student ideologies about civic responsibility would be influenced by the institution similar to the way campus employees’ statements were highly congruent with dominant beliefs. Additional research is needed to understand the connections between unique cultural approaches to civic responsibility and to student development
understand the full range of learning opportunities that are available. 2 years - a brief period compared to how long many of you in this room have been involved in the FE sector. But in that time, it has been an enormous privilege to learn so much about the reach and impact of FE. A sector that changes people’s lives. A sector that never gives up on anyone. And a sector with multiple strands of business, that has never had the attention it deserved and does - so much - for so many. As a new Minister my private office arranges meetings with all the
topic. The social features are also crucial since they enhance collaborative knowledge building processes aiming at the development of pedagogical expertise (e.g. Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola, & Lehtinen, 2004). As collaborative learning and social presence have been shown to provide multiple benefits for online learners (Combéfis, Bibal, & Van Roy, 2014), collaborative features were included in the guided study of the modules. Computers can support collaborative learning in several ways. The primary form of support is to provide a medium for communication; however, computer-supported learning environments can also provide various other forms of scaffolding (Stahl, Koschmann, & Suthers, 2014). The basic idea of the UNIPS platform is to bring together participants from different disciplines and universities. Providing them an opportunity to exchange ideas and share views is likely to support their meaning making regarding university pedagogy even without complex computational feedback and interaction mechanisms and thus also to support collaborative learning. The same process also helps to develop teachers’ reflective metacognitive skills as well as to foster conceptual development and even change by creating possibilities for cognitive conflicts in knowledge building situations (e.g. Mikkilä-Erdmann, Ahopelto, Virtanen, Kääpä, & Olkinuora, 2012).
In recent years, a pedagogical approach called Flipped Classroom (FC) has spread out to universities and has become popular. FC is defined as a student- centered learning approach in which learning content is delivered outside of class, preferably online, and classroom hours are used for students to engage in collaborative learning activities (Bergmann & Sams, 2015; Hao, 2016; Winter, 2018). In fact, FC is based on the socio-constructive learning perception, in which social interaction is seen as crucial for students’ learning. The FC approach is usually conceived so that in the first phase of the learning process, students study the learning material on the internet during a certain time period. After that, in the following days, these issues are talked about, discussed, and applied further in a face-to-face session, to construct the knowledge about and knowhow on the subject area. The FC approach is not a very well theorized construct, and it does not guarantee a learner-centered learning culture as it focuses on moving tasks in space and time (e.g. Abeysekera & Dawson, 2015). However, according to Mazur, Brown, and Jacobsen (2015), the Flipped Classroom approach that emphasizes collaborative learning, group work and accessibility can enable and support inquiry-based learning. According to Hao (2016), self-regulatory skills are crucial to achieving academic success in an FC context because of students’ need to preview learning material beforehand. There is also evidence that the FC approach may allow more students’ self-regulation than normal learning environments (Talbert, 2017). This may be because students are able to choose more freely when they study, schedule their own studying and, for example, choose how many times they go through the study material.
The main principle of these key projects has been the free use of the project results in all universities after the project period. The goal is ambitious and understandable, as the projects have been financed by public funds. At the moment, when there is still a couple of months left for the projects to finish we do not have a final solution, but it is highly probable that the materials can be stored on a national electronic platform. In general, the main issue now when the projects are ending is how to share the results and to maintain the new forms of collaboration developed in the Key Projects. This requires educational leadership both at national and institutional levels.
The digital technologies currently dominating universities are often developed with multiple purposes, often intertwined with organizational processes that aims to rationalize planning, administration and economy (Erlandsson, 2016). Purposes that make sense from the organizational perspective rather than individual teacher’s pedagogical concerns are inherent in the design of many digital systems. Moreover, collective developments in society, taking place on an even greater time scale, are pointed out by the teachers as constraints on their ability to plan and evaluate their pedagogic use of digital tools. This is visible in the discussion of juridical issues and the impossibility of reviewing the flood of available digital tools and resources, but also in attempts to make sense of the changing student population and their literacy practices. Lemke (2000) points out that the bodies of students can be seen as a boundary objects in a network, connecting local practice with distant places and activities.
Results showed that the teacher students had mostly positive experiences towards the course compatible with the FC approach. Students were, for example, satisfied with the course. Also, O’Flaherty and Phillips (2015) reported an increase in students’ satisfaction in FC courses. Further, results indicated that especially social relationships, i.e. peers and teachers, strongly affected the experiences of studies and contributed to self-regulation of learning. Especially peers were significant for most of the students during the whole course, i.e. going through the pre-materials, interaction during face-to-face time and doing group work. This seems to be connected with the experience of relatedness in supporting regulation and motivation, in comparison to Ryan & Deci (2000). Also, teachers were seen to support teacher students’ learning process. Teachers had created the kind of atmosphere that had a great impact on the positive experiences regarding the course. Also, previous research has detected that the Flipped Classroom has increased interaction between a teacher and students (Pierce & Fox, 2012) and that it seems that the teacher’s role is more of a coach than a teacher (O’Flaherty & Phillips, 2015).
addresses this concern by providing students with direct instructional guidance at the beginning of a new topic before proceeding to more student-centered methods that afford the students more autonomy and a more active role. Consequently, the teacher’s direct guidance is concentrated at the beginning of the learning process, where, according to quite often used Bloom’s taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002) for setting learning outcomes, the student is only remembering and understanding new knowledge. Students then apply, analyze, evaluate, and create knowledge both individually and collaboratively during the face-to-face meetings, where the teacher’s role gradually recedes, enabling students to effectively acquire new knowledge and learn. Therefore, as urged by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006), the shift from the teacher’s direct guidance to students’ self-direction in FC occurs and is supported only when students have an adequate level of prior knowledge.
The pedagogical design of the preparatory phase was similar to students in both course options. The development challenge phase, however, was organized differently. Students who participated in the TeamCamp had a three-day intensive period and met face-to-face at the beginning of the development challenge phase (see Table 2). The idea was to provide them with a possibility to get to know each other quite well right at the beginning of the development challenge phase and to start formulating their challenge face-to-face. The intensive period also provided an opportunity for teachers to help students defining the challenge in a more profound way. Students who participated in the DigiCamp version of the course relied only on mediated forms of communication throughout the process. The DigiCamp teams had to get in touch with teachers online, which might have diminished the role of teachers as resources for the DigiCamp teams. In terms of completing the development challenge, the DigiCamp teams were as successful as the TeamCamp teams, meaning that their development challenges were accepted to fulfill the requirements set to them and the members of the teams completed the course.