As I write this editorial, I am reflecting on the recent SEDA conference held in Cardiff, UK, in November. As always, I come away from the two days of intense focus on teaching and learning and the support that educational developers provide, with my head reeling. I have ideas to reflect on, practical suggestions of things to try in my classes and with colleagues and conjectures about the future. SEDA is the UK professional body for educational developers and so it was not surprising that the focus of many conversations and presentations were UK-centric, however, as someone from a Canadian university, there was plenty that was of direct relevance to my practice. I am pleased to say this diversity of perspective and enthusiasm for improving the student experience is reflected in this issue of IETI.
The first six of the articles in this issue focus on approaches to teaching and to professional development. Tomkinson et al. foray into the contested area of learning styles asking whether students from different disciplinary backgrounds taking a common course have different approaches to their learning – spoiler alert they do! Pi and Hong examine the learning process and learning outcomes that arise when teachers use different approaches in their teaching such as video podcasts. Continuing on this theme of technology in teaching, both Knight and Kaye and Luo explore the use of Twitter. In the case of Knight and Kaye, they compare the different approaches of academics and their students, while Luo looks at Twitter as a means to provide feedback in a face-to-face classroom.
Kunnari’s work asks the question: How do teachers experience educational innovation in their work? While acknowledging the changing landscape in HE and the concomitant requirement for instructors to change and adapt, this author from a Finnish University provided support to faculty interested in sharing good ideas. A coaching programme enabled the development and sharing of new practices through inspiring workshops, where the best practices in integration could be recognised and acknowledged.
In the next article, we move from the classroom to the professional development provided to instructors. How do teachers perceive the courses and workshops they attend? This is the focus for De Rijdt et al. in their examination of staff development programmes through the lens of three different models. Do teachers regard these as largely managerial, shop-floor or partnership exercises?
With the last four articles, we focus more directly on student learning. Chua Bee Leng’s article examines aspects of Problem-Based Learning linking cognitive functions to the different stages of the PBL process. Turunen Olsson et al. explore a similar area in their account of an integrated learning environment for student nurses. Whereas students often learn about medical subjects and the craft of nursing separately this article documents an approach to integrate the two and the benefits thereof. Karimi et al. present a neat study into the effect of a course designed to improve students’ abilities to generate innovative business ideas. The results indicate a significant effect, with this study not only adding to the literature on entrepreneurship but also offering a model for future comparative studies. Finally, Teixeira confirms what we all suspected – that absenteeism does indeed impact on students’ performance.
Deputy Editor
[email protected]