Where will it all end? - Emerging Technology in the Library: part 2

The afternoon sessions kicked off with Fiona Emberton talking about RFID and how libraries have the choice as to whether they let such technology automate their service or transform it. As with Les Watson’s morning session, this session was particularly relevant to me as LJMU looks to implement RFID as part of the Aldham Robarts Refurbishment project this summer. So far, assistants have been slogging it out all day everyday for the past 2 weeks tagging the book stock to get it ready for the opening of the new Aldham Centre in the autumn, running totals so far have reached 36,737 books with the overall target standing at 251,000. But anyway, that’s a whole different story…!

Fiona began her session by advocating that you should never let technology push you along or push you into doing something – there should always be a need for it first. Fiona claimed that RFID has gone beyond bleeding edge and leading edge, and is now very much a mainstream occurrence. RFID helps with security control and stock management, it has the capacity to read multiple-items making the issuing/returning process more efficient for users and it is good for instilling independence in users with disabilities. So why RFID? What can 21st century libraries gain from RFID? Fiona felt strongly in her view that in the current economic climate, libraries must invest to save and that an investment in RFID would have long-term economic benefits. RFID implementation results in an increase in staff effectiveness, freeing up staff time from routine functions in order that they have the time to provide a more personalised service, making better use of their complex skills set. I have encountered this notion during my current research into roving reference librarians equipped with mobile technologies also. The self-service nature of RFID is also compliant with information commons/social learning zone study environments as it allows these spaces to remain student-centred, without the need for imposing service counters/desks. Furthermore, RFID allows for opening hours to be extended thus providing a more relevant library service to busy 21st century learners who do not have the opportunity to study within the traditional 9-5pm time-scales.

Fiona highlighted the opportunities for new approaches to ways of working as a result of freeing up staff time and new learning opportunities also. For example, the STAR (strategic training for accurate reference) system of answering enquiries ensures that over 95% of enquiries are dealt with effectively and efficiently in the first instance (I think Fiona said typically, without the STAR approach, this number is as low as 55%).

And Fiona’s final words of wisdom (which I absolutely love by the way!): We should entertain a bit more humour in our libraries, students respond to it and appreciate it (rather than our current ‘just say no’ attitude…)

The afternoon drew to a close with an interesting session lead by Nick Woolley centred on e-learning and the role that web 2.0 can fulfil within the e-learning environment. Web 2.0 has been a bit of a buzz word for the last few years now, in terms of the ‘hype cycle’ Nick questioned as to whether we are now on the ‘slope of enlightenment,’ and if so, if now is the right time to adopt web 2.0 in libraries…??

When considered against an e-learning back-drop, it is fair to say that e-learning has never quite reached its full potential – since its emergence it has remained quite a passive approach to learning with virtual learning environments generally being a place for retrieving and reading text-based documents. There is little or no interaction the majority of the time…is this the place where web 2.0 technologies can be integrated to improve the e-learning experience?

Nick indicated that we (as librarians but educators also) need to take the initiative with web 2.0 or we will continue to face disintermediation. Furthermore, students are now paying customers and they want value for money. Some of the key points Nick highlighted about today’s students include:

· Students are part of an instant gratification culture
· They are assessment orientated
· They are competitive
· They hold a different view of intellectual property as a result of the digital age
· They are prepared to be educated.

The possibility of librarians losing clout, coupled with student expectations are key drivers to a more web 2.0 orientated library (and indeed education) system. I personally feel now is the time to adopt more interactive and collaborative working environments, and having completed the Learning 2.0 @ LJMU 12 week training course feel that library staff at LJMU are well equipped to take the lead with such trends.

Where will it all end? – Emerging Technology in the Library: part 1

Yesterday I attended the MmIT North West Summer Conference hosted here at Liverpool John Moores University. The day’s sessions were focused on how new and emerging technologies can be exploited in education to enhance the 21st century student’s learning experience, with particular emphasis on the libraries role within this mix. This first posting highlights the morning sessions, I will blog the afternoon sessions shortly.

Morning Sessions
The day kicked off to an enthralling start – a dazzling array of Russell Prue’s gadgets and gizmos – not to mention Russell’s rather striking orange bow tie and braces! Russell started off with a rather tongue in cheek request for us delegates to turn our mobile phones to silent, or at least sit on them, he didn’t want us to turn them off as we would be expected to use them in the session – yes as teaching and learning aids!!! Russell gave good insights into some of the current problems with our education system (that is now surrounded by a technological world)… educators are doing what they have always done regarding certain technologies, with many schools having restrictions on use of technology in the classroom. From banning mobile phones to filtering internet access, the UK is extremely strict on its allowances of personal technology use within schools and the education system. This is nonsensical though when considered against the fact that ‘Blogging’ is now a paid job in the US. In fact, the job of a ‘Blogger’ brings in a salary of $75,000 a year with approx 452,000 ‘Bloggers’ being paid for their work: the shift has happened. The education sector tends to talk about ‘this shift that is happening’ in relation to emerging technologies, but this is not completely true, we are already there.

Technology has inadvertently changed the landscape for the education system but how is the education sector responding to this shift? It appears that we are always doing what we’ve always done and not allowing technology to pervasively change it as it has the power to do so – engaging students, letting them explore, experiment and learn. At present, in curriculum terms, we spoon feed our children and the prescriptive nature of our education system means our children will never learn to explore, experiment, or think for themselves. Russell showed a video of a one year old child using an iPhone to look through photographs with his dad – he understood how the iPhone functioned, he has grown up surrounded by such technology – so what are the implications for children like this when they enter the education system?

Russell provoked a lot of questions to which at this moment in time, educators are not fully addressing, unfortunately, the chances are that this ‘lack of action’ is going to be to the detriment of today’s and tomorrow’s learners.

Next on the bill was Les Watson who spoke of the importance of technology and learning space design. This is particularly relevant at the moment here at LJMU as the summer months sees a massive refurbishment to the Aldham Robarts LRC. Avril Robarts LRC also lays home to a Social Learning Zone environment so I could relate to a lot of the points that Les raised.

Les maintained that there is as yet, no paradigm for the 21st century library, however on a positive note this does mean that we have the opportunity to drive this agenda forward as we feel fit for not only today’s students, but future students also.

At present student’s unrestricted personal access to technology is a challenge for educators as it is at odds to the provisions of which the education sector provides, hence the talk of digital disconnect between students and their schools (Selwyn, 2006) . Today’s children are digital learners; they have grown up with technology (although this does not mean they know the best ways to use the technology for educational purposes of course). As educators, that should be our job, but we need to be able to fulfil this role without dictating which technologies our students’ should use. So, does this further indicate that educators need to move away from the ‘sage on the stage’ to the ‘guide on the side’???

There will be more information created this year than there has been in the last 5,000 years whilst the power of technology is doubling every year – this poses more challenges than ever for education and libraries as we struggle to direct students through this information and technology dense environment that we now live in. Furthermore, the National Student Survey allows students to drive how we deliver our services, we can no longer ignore the information and technology our students utilise in their study.

Interestingly, Les questioned whether our library buildings have the power to change the education system? How important are physical spaces in a technology-enhanced learning world? The new learning spaces we currently have the scope to design and develop are, at present, predictions. And greater than this we have the power to design buildings that are flexible, imaginative and creative so that if we predict the future of learning incorrectly, it will not matter because these spaces will be adaptable.

On the notion of creativity Les summed up stating that we are all born creative, but, that society suppresses this creativity, partly through the education system. Les continued to finish with the rather inspirational notion that imagination is the most powerful tool we have and that we have the power to exploit this tool within education.

Jane Secker filled the slot before lunch, and at a time when delegates can begin to lag, Jane delivered a thoughtful and stimulating overview of Facebook’s place within libraries, and vice versa…!

At present, there is an enthusiasm in libraries for web 2.0 technologies driven by the ability of such technologies to reach new audiences, engage current users and enhance services. Just recently here at LJMU, all library staff completed a 12 week course, Learning 2.0 @ ljmu that sought to increase staff awareness of web 2.0 technologies and how they can be applied in library contexts. Jane highlighted however, that such enthusiasm is not without issue with their being an underlying concern regarding patron privacy and data protection, not to mention the huge hurdle that staff training in this area can create.

But why Facebook? Why social networking in libraries? Pivotally, Information Commons learning spaces are a key driver for Library 2.0 with many seeing libraries now sitting between academic spaces and social spaces.

An overview of library related facilities within Facebook shows that there are large numbers of applications (including booksharing apps and the facility to search an institution’s library catalogue, some academic libraries have even taken steps to develop their own application to search their catalogue in-house, allowing them to almost tailor-make the app to suit the needs of their students). There are lots of groups for librarians to join on Facebook to share ideas and experiences with more and more library pages appearing also. The library page works like a sort of library profile enabling students to become a ‘fan’ of the library, subsequently receiving news and notifications as necessary.

It would be fair to admit that Facebook is not a new phenomenon, yet the amount of discussion it provokes is phenomenal. A particularly pertinent point that Jane made was to question whether Facebook can convince the ‘Google Generation’ that the library is still relevant? If it can, surely it is not something to be sniffed at?


References
SELWYN, N. (2006) Exploring the ‘digital disconnect’ between net-savvy students and their schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 31 (1), pp.5-17

Mobile Hardware Trial Update

The mobile device trial in student support settings is well underway here at LJMU. The BOS is up, running and in-use as is the project wiki and it appears that the staff involved in the trial are trying hard to think of new and innovative ways in which the devices can be practically used in HE library settings. Many staff participants have been happy to explore the possibilities that specific apps (such as Fring) pose, even in their own time in some cases which really displays the interest and excitement these devices create. Furthermore it exposes the levels of realisation from current library staff here at LJMU with regards to the ways in which technology can help them in their day-to-day jobs and routine, as well as making the student experience of the library service more positive.

Unfortunately due to the time of year, student contact in roving contexts is sparse, however over the summer we have a large group of international students from Malaysia (who have just started to arrive over the last few days) so hopefully student enquiries will increase.

The devices have received mixed reviews so far. Generally speaking the notebooks and EEE PCs are the better option for in-depth search and retrieval queries as the directly simulate the steps which the students must go through on their laptop or desktop PC. The iPod Touches get a big ‘thumbs up’ for standard roving activities such as book searches with some staff members enthralled by the intuitive device design (some staff didn’t even need training, they just picked up the device, ‘played’ around with it and worked it out for themselves)! Personally speaking, this is a major compliment to the Apple design team! A major problem with the iPod Touches however (which is probably more to do with the design of the LJMU E-Library than the limitations of the device) is that users are unable to jump from the scroll down menu in which Faculty and subject discipline is chosen, to the scroll down menu which stipulates the databases relevant to the users subject area. This means that one of the LJMU E-Library elements is obsolete when using an iPod Touch. Although on a positive note, without having these devices ‘in-house’ our support desk staff would not have been in a position of knowledge when advising students who own such devices as iPod Touches or iPhones. Furthermore, now that we are aware of the limitation of our E-Library with regards to mobile access, decisions can be made on ways to address this.

On Wednesday, one of the EEE PCs took a trip down to London whilst one of the Research and Learners Support Officers took it to a conference. At 10am, a mobile posting appeared on the wiki, updated whilst travelling at high speed on a Virgin Pendolino train, indications show that the device is lightweight, compact and robust – ideal for transportation! This supports the case for more mobile Officers here at LJMU proving that the device capabilities will match the tasks required with library liaison activities delivered within the faculties and schools perhaps.

We are still awaiting the delivery of the eBeam, video camera and MP4 player – watch this space for further updates!!

Mobile Hardware Trial and Evaluation

The m-learning project here at LJMU has taken another interesting turn after a kind donation of money from the Director of Teaching & Learning Development of the Learning Development Unit. The money has enabled us to buy a number of mobile devices for full trial and evaluation in academic contexts.

The devices we now have to play with are:

· 2x Asus EEE PC 904HD-BK003X
· 2x LG X110 Notebook
· 5x iPod Touch
· 2x Samsung D391 Digital Camcorder
· 2x Creative Labs Zen 4GB Portable Media Player
· 1x eBeam Complete Kit

The steering group for this part of the project met for the first time yesterday in which the trial and evaluation processes were discussed. Nominated staff to trial the devices will be briefed during the remainder of the week, the devices will be checked and relevant anti-virus be installed etc. prior to the official commencement of the trial period (hopefully the 18th May and lasting approximately 6 weeks).

The devices have been split into 2 groupings:

· Devices to trial in roving contexts within the library setting (EEE PC, notebook, iPod Touch)
· Devices to trial in teaching and learning contexts within the library setting (camcorder, portable media player, eBeam)

Roving
The devices will be trialled by both assistant level staff and Information Officer level staff. It was decided that the best way to trial the devices in roving contexts would be achievable by (a) the assistants simply arming themselves with a device during their normal timetabled roving slot (at LJMU assistant level roving has been in place for well over a year now). (b) the nominated Officer level staff splitting their assigned time on information points between manning the desk and roving out on the floor. The interactions that happen during these periods will be recorded and evaluated via a brief online survey at the point of action. In july, a focus group will also be held to qualify the data from the online surveys.

Teaching and Learning Contexts
Staff have been assigned to evaluate specified devices within the given timescale, evaluation of these devices will be done via a more diary/log based approach in which the staff involved will note down important aspects of the devices capabilities/limitations etc. within its given context.

Watch this space for updates of the hardware trial…

Project Update (with a sprinkling of good news...)

For those of you that have been following my blog since last November, you may be thinking the project should be drawing to a close very soon and you may be hoping that the official project report would be accessible, however, this week I received some great news in that the project has been extended by a further 3 months. This is absolutely brilliant news as it will allow for a mobile device trial and evaluation to run at one of our LRCs and further research into best practice and academic engagement with m-learning to be undertaken. As is the nature of the mobile technologies field, everyday breathes life into new developments, new research and new projects, and in recent weeks (whilst I have been manically writing up the project report!!) I have had to be quite brutal about not writing in new information and new data due to time constraints. I can now take a moment to reflect on further literature and incorporate vital aspects of current m-learning developments within academia.

It is further hoped that I will be able to visit at least a couple more schools/institutions to augment the best practice section of the report also.

The added time will ensure thorough preparation for the m-Libraries conference in Vancouver in June (at which I am also presenting the project findings!!!)

LearnHigher M-posium

On Wednesday 22nd April I attended the 1st Learn Higher M-posium at Manchester Metropolitan University. The day was jam-packed with insightful speakers and lively discussions and was a great chance to speak to some of the best in the business with regards to m-learning.

Speakers for the day were as follows:
· Barriers to the adoption of mobile technologies -
Dr. Stephen Hagan
· Making the theory work! – managing and supporting a large scale mobile initiative -
Dr. David Whyley
· Leaner devices – mobile learning out of control -
John Traxler
· Past, present and future -
Jon Trinder
· Mobile learning – learner mobility the story thus far and some ideas of future challenges -
Andy Black
· Urban planning education in context with mobile phones -
Prof. John Cook

Dr. Stephen Hagan (University of Ulster) kicked off the day with an astute presentation which highlighted some of the key barriers to student adoption of mobile technologies and m-learning activities. The session covered four key themes including hardware, software, institutional and social issues, discussing both the barriers and solutions within each area. It was a very honest and open presentation in which Stephen made no steps to try and glorify m-learning or to imply that adopting m-learning cultures was easy. For me, Stephen’s ‘frank’ approach made m-learning seem all the more real and all the more attainable. It made me realise that there are many barriers within m-learning contexts that do not have ready-made solutions, yet these barriers are not impenetrable; with hard work, planning and the confidence to step into a world which at present is not the ‘norm’ in education new and innovative m-learning environments can be achieved…and when in life is anything straightforward and easy anyway? In order to achieve effective m-learning environments we need to be prepared to break through the pain barrier before we (and our students) can reap the benefits.

Dr. David Whyley (City of Wolverhampton) was in the hot-seat next to speak about his on-going efforts to support and maintain a large scale mobile learning initiative in Wolverhampton. David is a lead member of the Learning2Go initiative and has won numerous awards for his commitment and hard work. Like Stephen, he spoke honestly and openly about his experiences, encouraging attendees to take note and learn from his mistakes. Three pivotal points that David highlighted were:

· M-learning is not easy but it is worthwhile
· M-learning should be approached in a ‘step-by-step’ manner – don’t aim too high
· The biggest thing that needs to be changed within m-learning cultures is the people, not the technology

The key challenges that David has encountered over the last few years with regards to m-learning implementation are:

· Mobile device market volatility
· Connectivity costs
· Teacher’s reluctance to change
· Top-down pressures on teachers and schools

All these challenges readily translate to HE settings also. Interestingly, David pointed out that the first batch of students that were involved with the Learning2Go project are now approaching university age. In terms of my m-learning in HE research this throws up numerous questions… how will this generation of learners impact on HE? Will they feel disillusioned by current HE provisions of m-learning and technology-enhanced learning? Are they going to end up taking 2 steps back in their study habits due to the restraints of HE delivery?

Third on the bill was John Traxler (University of Wolverhampton). John called attention to the growing tension between education providers and education consumers as a result of the now ubiquitous learner access to powerful personal technologies whilst schools, colleges and universities continue to try and regiment technology provisions. This falls directly in-line with the research of Selwyn (2006) who speaks of a growing ‘digital disconnect’ between students and their schools and raises questions as to the relevancy of future education provisions for future learners. Furthermore, John denoted that we are now living in a society of changing social values (for example a mobile telephone now regularly takes precedence over a face-to-face conversation), children are growing up with new social values compared to those of their predecessors, how should this be addressed within educational settings?

Jon Trinder (University of Glasgow – PhD student) was the final presenter of the morning discussing the past, present and future of mobile technologies and their educational use for teaching and learning purposes. An interesting point that Jon made about mobile devices was that at times, single, purpose-built devices do a better job singularly than a combined device, such as a smartphone. In a time of growing debate about how many devices students are willing to carry this is a thought-provoking concept, surely in education we should be pushing to be using the best tools for the job not the most convenient…but if the convenient option is the student option is this not more important? How can we measure such issues to come up with relevant solutions for 21st century learners? Moreover Jon highlighted the importance of the word ‘personal’ with regards to the term ‘personal devices’ – the device that a learner uses is best for them (as an individual), in traditional education delivery educators are prescriptive about the tools and technologies to be used for specific tasks – how does this translate in m-learning contexts?

The fifth speaker of the day was Andy Black (BECTA) who gave a dynamically off-the-cuff presentation that almost evolved as the session did! Unfortunately for Andy his session came after four very thorough m-learning sessions which meant that over lunch Andy decided to change tact slightly, after a shortened lunch stop he returned to re-work his original presentation drawing on some rather interesting points and emerging technologies. The key points that I took from Andy’s session were:

· Mobile learning provides the opportunity for iteration and transformation (however, how should assessment practice evolve to cater for this process – assessment is a real issue within m-learning contexts)
· There is a mountain to climb with regards to workforce development in the field of m-learning (teachers are busy people!)
· Mobile learning allows us (as educators) to engage with students (some of which would never normally pass through the doors)

Andy also spoke about the emergence of QR tags (which I have touched upon in a previous blog posting) and stressed an interesting point in that there is no way of knowing what is behind the code. When your phone reads it and directs you to the website you could be sent anywhere – it appears that there could be serious virus problems within this area of m-learning. Fascinatingly also, Andy demonstrated a projector phone (similar to this one) and even demonstrated how PowerPoint presentations could be played through a large screen via an iPod touch – great stuff!!!

Prof. John Cook (London Metropolitan University) brought in the rear-end of the day with an insight into a context-sensitive and location-aware m-learning project he has been working on. Basically learners go out into an urban area of London equipped with a mobile device running Mscape player, as learners move through the physical world the GPS triggers contextual digital media via an invisible interactive map (e.g. audio, supplementary photos, QuickTime VR reconstructions of the insides of buildings). It appeared from feedback from the learners involved, a more active learning experience was facilitated by the technology and overall was a much appreciated learning experience.

The M-posium was an innovative and thought-provoking event that encouraged communication and collaboration between institutions and education sectors with regards to m-learning knowledge and practice. It was an invaluable day for anyone looking towards more mobile futures in education and one I was delighted to have attended.

With thanks to Michelle Verity (LearnHigher Manager), Sylvie Steward (LearnHigher M-Learning Co-ordinator), Bob Glass (MMU Library) and Mark Stubbs (Managed learning Environment Project Director) for their hard efforts in making the day so enjoyable and successful. My sincere apologies to anyone I have missed out…


SELWYN, N. (2006) Exploring the ‘digital disconnect’ between net-savvy students and their schools. Learning, Media and Technology, 31 (1), pp.5-17

LJMU Learning and Teaching Conference

Tuesday 21st April saw the start of a two day annual conference at LJMU: the LJMU Learning and Teaching Conference. It was the 8th of its kind and most successful so far with 244 delegates attending, participating in a choice of 45 sessions that fell under one of the following umbrellas - teaching innovations, learning technologies, assessment practices, student employability, learner support or professional development.

I attended as a delegate on Tuesday 21st April and also presented in the afternoon (unfortunately I was unable to make the 2nd day as I attended the 1st Learn Higher M-posium in Manchester, check back soon for blogposting!!).

The day was a really exciting time as it was a chance for LJMU staff to showcase their success stories, research, projects and developments; it enhanced cross-department communication and encouraged the sharing of ideas and possible future ventures. Student involvement throughout the day made the event all the more special and highlighted the highly student-centred approach to teaching and learning currently experienced by those studying at the IM Marsh Campus CETL.

The opening keynote “placing students at the center of the story” really captured the essence of the on-going work at the CETL which focuses on the enhancement of student employability, leadership and enterprise. Three key areas were addressed including ‘developing the individual’ ‘creating connections’ and ‘making it happen.’ Work-related learning was high on the agenda – a vital component it seems in both student development and preparation for the workplace – an integral part to many degree courses throughout the university also.

Developing the individual was perhaps most pivotal to my current m-learning research which is a highly individual and personal learning experience, developing self-awareness and developing the individual can be readily achieved through a pro-active and supportive m-learning environment.

Throughout the rest of the day I attended 5 sessions, firstly one that concentrated on the student induction process as an integral support mechanism in ensuring students feel comfortable in the shift from sixth form/college life to university life. The session was delivered by Jack O’Farrell and Sue Darwent from the Faculty of Business and Law and was called ‘it was a great ice-breaker and introduction to university life.’ What was so special about this induction process was that it spanned a 2 week period and was supported by an extensive research and planning phase. This phase ensured that the newly designed induction process was relevant to new undergraduate students and that it was enjoyable also.

Initially staff opinion was sought concerning previous student induction experiences, the general consensus being that the induction process was neither exciting nor engaging for the students and that staff at times were not 100% comfortable within the induction domain. A resolution to this was found via a hybrid method of induction sessions that would span over a 2 week period. The main event was held at the Adelphi Hotel comprising the likes of the VC and the Student’s Union, the entire ‘fresher’ cohort of the Business School (apart from 20 out of 780) and Alumni. This was then followed up throughout the rest of the induction time with tutor led session and student led sessions that were aimed to encourage communication and teamwork amongst the new students.

The overall accord from the new students experiencing this newly designed induction process appeared to be that the induction was enjoyable, valued and relevant. It will be interesting to see if any conclusions can be drawn in the future with regards to the revised induction process helping with attendance and retention issues.

Key points for any other faculties looking to adopt a more thorough induction process include the direct need for backing from senior management and that the large cohort event was one of the major success stories of this new induction programme.

The second session I attended was that of the infamous Keith V. Trickey and Sherrington Sanders called ‘how to identify a poorly performing lecturer.’ Now for those of you that have not met Keith it will be hard for me to relay in writing the spirit of his session…but I will have a go!

Keith is a very dynamic speaker (and lecturer) capturing his audience with anecdotes and animation, so, the content of his presentation took me by great surprise. It would appear that Keith is failing his students. He is not hitting the expected targets (as stipulated in the university strategic plan) for lecturers across the university in pass rates (and fail rates). A lot of ‘number crunching’ (in the sense of moving students into different degree categories) would be needed year in year out in order that Keith reaches his targets. So is Keith a poorly performing lecturer? According to statistics yes he is. But, there is a fundamental flaw in these statistics. The numbers comprise students who attend lectures intermittently, students who attend lectures rarely, students who don’t attend lectures at all…how can Keith have failed these students…have they not failed themselves?

As we institutionally push student-centred approaches to teaching and learning, would it not be more relevant to have a student-centred approach to lecturer performance assessment? From personal experience of Keith as a lecturer I can honestly say (without it being an act of unctuousness!!) he has been one of my favourite among a very small number of lecturers and teachers throughout my education, from primary school to postgraduate level study. I am astonished that he could be connected to the realms of poorly performing lecturers and I feel it must be hard pill to swallow for Keith himself, and many other excellent lecturers and teaching staff.

Finally, Keith asked session attendees to come up with resolutions to his teaching dilemma…

Then there was lunch, absolutely lovely but who thought it’d be a good idea to present the salad table on a circular table – where did the queue start and where did it end!?!?! We will never know.

The afternoon session kicked off with a look into the world of the wiki as an assessment tool for students that study ‘Intertextual Analysis’ within the School of Media, Critical and Creative Arts. The premise behind this approach was to avoid essay-overkill, as can happen in English degree programmes. The intentions of the wiki assignment was to encourage careful and concise writing (students had a very small word count of 500 words), to expose intertextuality via imagery whilst also taking advantage of the technology, to include formal academic conventions (such as a bibliography) and to concentrate upon a single them only (unlike an essay). The students were expected to work in groups to produce a wiki page that discussed a particular theme from an identified text whilst incorporating a picture to augment the chosen theme.

The difficulties encountered during this exercise included the preparation needed on the student’s behalf, including the time taken to explain the wiki and what was expected, the size of the seminar group meant that it had to be split in order that more manageable numbers were facilitated and the inherent issues with any group-work type assessment tasks were experienced also.

The benefits of this innovative assessment style comprised the opportunity for students to re-draft, the opportunity to view other students’ work and the fact that it was something different with regards to assessment activities.

The next session I attended was delivered by Phil Vickerman and Milly Blundell from the Faculty of Education, Community and Leisure and was called ‘reflective comparative approaches to effective learning environments for students.’ This session disseminated some of the research performed both here at LJMU and at the University of Cincinatti into what the key elements of effective learning environments are for university students. Common themes from both investigations included lecturer commitment and availability, access to technology and the facility for a quiet place to study. Particularly pertinent to the m-learning research is the high requirement levels of technology within effective learning environments indicating that students want to have opportunities of technology-enhanced learning as part of their normal study patterns.

Initial suggestions from this research implies that effective learning spaces are themselves student specific and should where possible be student-centred. Here at LJMU the recently launched Social Learning Zone at Avril Roabrts LRC and planned refurbishment of Aldham Robarts LRC fulfils the student-focused element that was shown to be of value during this research project.

Further detailed analysis of the results obtained here at LJMU is planned imminently via SPSS.

Myself and Will Reid presented during the next session giving an overview of the mobile technologies in teaching and learning research we have been involved in over the last 6 months, an overview of the learning2.0@ljmu training programme followed directly afterwards. Both these sessions provoked a lively discussion amongst academics, support staff, LIS staff and CIS staff with regards to technology-enhanced learning. There was a massive indication that further research into this area needed to be performed especially from the academic perspective and it is hoped that off the back of this session that academic staff focus groups will be fulfilled as part of the m-learning research project…watch this space…

At the end of the day I felt buoyant by the new, interesting and innovative aspects of teaching and learning currently on offer at LJMU. The day made me realise that there are lots of ‘forward-thinking’ and ‘student-centred’ projects and initiatives underway across the university and cheesy as it sounds made me feel empowered as a member of LJMU staff. My only disappointment was in that I was unable to attend the full conference however I look forward to what will be offered up this time next year!