The COVID 19 pandemic has caused great uncertainty about what the ‘new normal’ may look like. It has already transformed Higher Education and its delivery, and has had huge impacts on the globe’s economy and the way in which we think about ‘business as usual’ in a world in which we have no idea when infections may stabilise. So it seems appropriate that the papers in this edition all explore issues that relate to the greatest change in Higher Education since Humbolt. They look at issues to do with online learning, how we can creatively change the way the world works and share that knowledge with students and how students need to be more central to the way they learn and the ways in which they are taught.
Active or activity-based learning is a focus for a few of the papers in this edition. Alsaleh, from King Saud University, Saudi Arabia (Flipped classrooms to enhance postgraduate students’ research skills in preparing a research proposal) explores how student-centred, activity-based learning enhances research proposal development. Whilst not without some design flaws, the study does look at students in the social sciences and suggests that students show improved outcomes with this form of learning.
In their paper, Gil-Doménech and Berbegal-Mirabent from the Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain (Making the learning of mathematics meaningful: An active learning experience for business students) demonstrate that teaching of essential skills (which may seem irrelevant to students) is most effectively achieved through teaching them explicitly but in the context of their subject matter. This is similar to other findings in the literature but interestingly in this paper, positive outcomes seen in the first year were not seen in subsequent years. An outcome that clearly warrants further investigation.
In their paper, ‘Creating apprenticeship simulations for teaching enterprise modelling – Principles and lessons learned’, Henkel and Bider (Stockholm University, Sweden) describe a blended/activities-based approach to case-based learning designed to develop students’ skills and understanding of the difficult concept of enterprise modelling. The paper describes how using a more inclusive approach to introducing the case-study element of the activity (previously a paper-based exercise) resulted in greater student engagement and an enhanced ability to grasp concepts. The paper also provides advice and guidance about how to prepare materials to undertake this approach to teaching.
Students are also at the centre of the paper by Gillanders, Karazi and O’Riordan, from Dublin City University Ireland and Hanken School of Economics, Finland (Loss aversion as a motivator for engagement with peer assessment). The authors try to address the need for reduced assessment burdens and enhanced engagement with assessment for learning. They introduced a peer-feedback element in which students could lose marks if the scores they derived from the rubric for a colleagues work was more than 4% different to that awarded by the academic. Few students lost marks (which the authors argue was related to loss aversion). Student feedback was ambiguous as one might expect. The authors did not discuss the evidence in the literature that shows that even the most experienced academics, using well-developed rubrics, may arrive at very different scores. Perhaps we might see a further development of this work where students undertake the peer assessment first, discussing in groups and with the teachers, exactly ‘what good looks like’ in relation to each criterion for the rubric and then, using that tacit common understanding, develop their own essays.
Online learning has been around for years and yet in many traditional Higher Education institutions, learning has largely remained face-to-face. This may be due to the still pervading concept of ‘this is how I was taught’ or it may be due to ‘innovation aversion’ and a lack of confidence in being able to use the technology properly. In addition, the expansion of the responsibility of an academic due to increased monitoring and legislation, may mean that developments have not advanced at the expected pace purely due to lack of time and resources. Interestingly, the introduction of open educational resources was not met with much enthusiasm due to a prevailing ‘Knights who say ‘NIH1’ (Not Invented Here) attitude. We still see these tendencies today, or rather we did before COVID. Now, worldwide, institutions are delivering most, if not all, of their teaching online and have achieved this in a very short time frame. We do not know how much longer this approach may need to persist. So, this is an interesting time to look at some of the papers in this edition. For example, Carvalho, Pereira and Rocha, Polytechnic of Porto and University of Coimbra, Portugal (A systematic literature review on maturity models for information systems in higher education institutions) provide an exploration of how we can measure the maturity of Higher Education information systems which are in these COVID times, even more essential to our sustainability.
Stackhouse et al., from the University of North Carolina, Greensboro, USA, the University of Calgary, Canada; and the North Central College (Why Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have been resisted: A qualitative study and resistance typology) explore why MOOCs have not been the great success that everyone expected, providing an opportunity to reflect on whether or not the COVID pandemic may see their resurgence.
Also addressing the theme of online learning, Sarmouk et al., from the University of Brighton, UK (Pre-laboratory online learning resource improves preparedness and performance in pharmaceutical sciences practical classes) have explored the efficacy of online preparation for practical laboratory classes for pharmacy students. In all instances the engagement with the online resources seemed to enhance student capabilities both practically and from a safety perspective when they performed in the laboratory.
Extending the concept of learning for the professions, Zhang and Schmidt-Herta from Shanghai Polytechnic University, China and the University of Tübingen, Germany (Dual studies in different cultural contexts: The work-study model in Germany and its applicability to China) look at the benefits of combining academic study with workplace learning. For a long time, many institutions have required students to undertake workplace learning as part of their degree programme. In the UK, the introduction of foundation degrees and later apprenticeships, provided a framework for combined learning in a legitimate way. However, in China, this type of education is uncommon. This paper explores the model of ’dual study‘ programmes in a German university (where students study theory at University and apply this in a work-based environment). It also explores with academics in China if this type of model is feasible or applicable there.
The final two papers in this edition address the challenges faced by students (and staff) in the way we conceptualise and realise ideas. Sosa and Kayrouz from Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand and Monash University, Australia (Creativity in graduate business education: Constitutive dimensions and connections) propose a new model of developing creativity in business students and describe how it might be applied. Meanwhile, Wald and Daniel, from the University of Otago, New Zealand explore ‘Enhancing students’ engagement with abstract ideas through conceptual and theoretical frameworks’. Whilst you may not get answers from this paper, it provides a useful resource to anyone confused by the meanings of the terms theory, concept, framework or hypothesis.
1. Adapted from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.