Editorial

As Higher Education emerges from both the impact and aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic, several articles in this edition are reflections on lessons learned, with considerations for future strengthening of HE provision. The first of this set of studies by Romero-Hall and Cherrez considered the case of digital literacy among the academic community of the digital pedagogy and technologies universities around the world during emergency remote teaching (ERT). While the findings showcased HE academics’ efforts and creativity in their ‘desire to thrive during challenging times’, it also enabled a deeper understanding of their digital literacy needs and challenges encountered. The authors argued that availability (or lack) of digital literacy resources and support structures entailed crucial implications for this academic community’s professional development.

Similarly, following the mandatory shift to online learning provision in Montenegrin HE, Kavaric, Kavaric and Djokovic administered an online questionnaire to reflect on various aspects of online provision, e.g. teaching staff digital literacy, use of synchronous and asynchronous online teaching, assessments as well as associated technology-related challenges. While evaluative in nature, this paper offers a sound understanding of how universities managed the transition from a traditional to an online teaching model during the pandemic. Moreover, implications for improving teaching staff members’ digital literacy were raised. In another study, Zhang and Yu observed and evaluated the effectiveness of digital pedagogy based on a longitudinal study that involved three Chinese universities. While the use of digital pedagogy was part of China’s contingency plan – referred to as ‘Suspending Classes without Stopping Learning’ – there was evidence to support how it extended the dimensions of digital pedagogy. Similarly, study findings highlighted the importance of sustained support in technology, instruction and organisation as well as cyber safety – with the latter aimed at ensuring ‘healthy digital learning environments’ in order to optimise what digital learning environments could offer. In comparison, although it was recognised how online assessment during the pandemic was important in Egypt, it was also stressed that students needed to ‘be convinced of the usefulness of the transition to online assessment before they embrace it willingly’. In this respect, Abd Elgalil and colleagues Abd El-Hakam, Farrag, Abdelmohsen and Elkolaly conducted research to explore undergraduate medical students’ perceptions of online assessment to evaluate both the quality of online exams and how they could be improved.

In the context of feedback and assessment, based on the premise that feedback literate individuals tend to be more productive learners, Nicola-Richmond, Tai and Dawson investigated the transferability of feedback literacy to the workplace setting in the Australian context. Study findings from this mixed-methods study were positive, yet they recognised initial levels of feedback literacy, quality of feedback received and students’ engagement with feedback as key influencing factors to bridging university education and workplace settings successfully. In another study undertaken by Bhatti and co-authors in the Saudi Arabian context, the team explored developing employability skills specific to Business graduates as well as the teaching and learning techniques that led to acquiring such skills. Their study endorsed that there was a consensus on what were regarded as important employability skills according to both industry professionals and graduates, despite some rating differences. In Spain, Diez’s study sought to improve industrial engineering students’ engagement by using self and peer assessment, particularly in the most challenging aspects of the course. While this study cautioned that this strategy could increase the workload for students and teaching staff, it equally reported a marked improvement and endorsed its effectiveness. Accordingly, these students raised their level of criticality in relation to the course content.

With a focus on e-mentoring, Liu’s research in Taiwan explored the benefits and challenges posed by synchronous videoconferencing with seven recent teacher education graduates (rather than with the typical ‘veteran teachers’), who volunteered as e-mentors to fifteen teacher education students. Study findings not only supported the effectiveness of this online mentoring programme, they also upheld the value of novice teachers acting as mentors to students. Mentors stressed how the questions raised by their mentees contributed to the stimulation of their own thoughts and to their endeavours to address their own problems. At the university level, this innovative e-mentoring could equally serve as a means for alleviating concerns over lack of traditional mentors. In a study on faculty development in Saudi Arabia, Iqbal, Könings, Al-Eraky and van Merriënboer explored the perspectives of the co-creators – students and academics – regarding their participation in a faculty development programme. Despite some academics’ doubts over students’ meaningful contribution potentially due to their inadequate knowledge of the topic and/or lack of teaching experience, or the subsequently reported ‘cognitive dissonance’ (defined as ‘uncomfortable tension’ arising from simultaneously holding two conflicting thoughts), the co-creation process itself conveyed multiple benefits for stakeholders. Overall, this study fostered the desirability of co-created training programmes and activities that are practical and comprehensive when designing faculty development programmes – with emphasis on purposeful participant recruitment and pre-training.

By applying Cognitive Load Theory, Xia, Han, Chen and Dai reported how the presentation formats as part of the Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) webpage design could strongly affect learners’ experience. Drawing upon their findings, they discussed in detail the significant practical implications for improving MOOC environment, e.g. presence of instructor, use of graphic symbols.

The last set of articles took into account the postgraduate context. In a study set within the context of a biomedical programme in China, the focus was on understanding learners’ characteristics when designing ‘a new teaching modality’ and assessing its impact. Accordingly, Liu and colleagues advocated that the ‘lecture enriched with practicum, research proposal and post-course advice’ or LEPPA intervention could promote and help resolve concerns confronting domestic and international undergraduate students as they transition to the graduate level, with its typically ‘alien research environment’. A study undertaken by Holzweiss with a group of experienced doctoral supervisors in the US focused on the ‘challenges and trade-offs’ when supporting doctoral student writing. While findings were interpreted using Lee and Murray’s (2015) five writing supervision approaches, i.e. functional, enculturation, critical thinking, emancipation and relationship, Holzweiss argued that ‘how student behaviours shaped supervision’ was not accounted for. Doctoral scholars’ engagement towards personal growth subsequently informs how much time and emotional labour that supervisors invest in doctoral supervision. While supervisors’ support is regarded as crucial, it is doctoral students’ commitment to personal writing throughout the doctoral programme that is argued to be key and ‘an effective strategy for increasing completion’. Finally, Yamnitsky discussed how the US-based ‘Agile Research’ approach – characterising frequent collaboration, communication, feedback and flexibility during a change of direction – could be adopted in managing a challenging and complex doctoral process. By mapping his own doctoral experience against the Agile principles, a conceptual model was proposed to show how the model is analogous to the doctoral experience, e.g. incremental steps, ongoing feedback, learning adjustments or uncertainty management. Yamnitsky then made a persuasive case that applying this model could facilitate more successful and timely doctoral completion.