Editorial

Why do so many of us love university so much that we never leave? I am sure there are as many answers to that question as there are readers. I suspect many of us would mention the joy of learning and the pleasure of immersing ourselves in our disciplines; however jaded and cynical we may occasionally feel. Those of us who remain beyond our undergraduate years, or return after a spell in ‘the real world’, recognise the privileges of university life. A goodly part of that life involves teaching students. Readers of this journal are more likely than most to take a close interest in that activity. I am therefore pleased to present a collection of essays in this issue of ‘Innovations in Education and Teaching International’ that focus very clearly on the student experience. Half the articles involve approaches using technology, but all of them examine ways in which we might improve the learning experience.

Commander, Zhao, Gallagher and You launch this issue with a study into the use of online discussions between students in different locations (China and USA) which resulted in increased learning for the students. Biddix, Chung and Park also engage in an international study comparing the use of mobile technology by faculty from Korea and the USA. Gone are the days I remember from my childhood, where as a boarder at an English Girls’ School I waited often in vain for the daily post hoping to hear from my parents who were working in Hong Kong. Skype, texts and social media have made the world far smaller and connections far easier. Konings, Popa, Gerken, Giesbers, Rienties, van der Vleuten and van Merriënboer illustrate this through the use of video conferencing to support students who study abroad. Their study indicates that students who were supported in this way had as favourable an experience as those who stayed in their home institution, in comparison with those students who studied abroad, but were not supervised using video conferencing. In a similar vein, West and Turner compare the use of video feedback with written responses. They found that most students prefer the former. At times technology is in advance of perceived needs – it may be possible to use video conferencing to keep in touch with students and to provide them with feedback, but that does not automatically lead to it being used widely in this way. The findings from these studies may encourage more of us to engage proactively with students.

In the second half of this issue, we move away from technology but stay with the theme of improving the student learning experience. Mauri, Ginesta and Rochera’s article bridges the gap between the two halves. They grappled with the thorny issue of providing feedback on collaborative writing. In their study of a particular feedback system, they reinforce our appreciation of the importance of timely and usable feedback. They developed a system that works with collaborative writing, and which involves the teachers in working collaboratively as well as the students. Their chosen VLE, Moodle, is shown to be an effective tool in the use of this system of feedback. Ku and Kuo’s essay recounts their attempt to create a framework for creative thinking based on the experiences of nurses awarded for their own creativity. The result is a tool for use in nurse education in the first instance which may have wider applications. Asghar’s article examining Dialogue Days presents a teaching method which according to students and their teachers enhances student engagement with an emphasis on relation and emotional aspects of learning. Canboy, Montalvo, Carmen Buganza and Emmerling applied Kolb’s Experiential Learning theory to a master’s course involving interdisciplinary projects. This purposeful application of each of the stages described by Kolb as necessary for learning provides further evidence of the utility of the theory to enhance the learning experience. Finally, in this issue, Chen and Chang compare the outcomes for students in individual and collaborative learning experiences using Pask’s notion of ‘holists’ and ‘serialists’. They conclude that the optimum learning environment is collaborative where students with both inclinations work together.

Taken together these nine articles provide practical evidence-based approaches to teaching that may be applied in multiple contexts. I believe we are fortunate indeed to have the freedom and opportunity to engage with students and influence their experience of university life. These articles may go some small way to support us in our endeavours.

Celia Popovic