Enhanced-learning – a spatial perspective #TEL

TEL-iconI believe there is some confusion about the term technology-enhanced learning (TEL) and in general the idea of enhanced learning. In a recent post on Twitter @alejandro (12/06/18) says,

“We should be critical of ‘technology-enhanced’ learning. Default setting: technology enhances things. Does it always? Should we therefore talk about book-enhanced learning? Pencil-enhanced learning? What matters is how & why we use things, not the tech itself #FutureEdTech #LTSF18”

I would strongly agree that there needs to be a critique of the term and the way it is used, but I also believe there is a misunderstanding evident in the discussion that followed around what technology-enhanced learning means.

Before continuing let me say that I think the term is worn out, misrepresented and generally abused. Its continued use is at least unhelpful and, in terms of its use in the advocacy of academic innovation, potentially detrimental and self-defeating. Even more importantly, it is not helpful to distinguish learning with digital technology from learning in any other context – after all these years, we must see the learning space holistically and as having many facets. Until we accept this we will struggle to understand and use ideas like blended learning, hybrid or augmented learning space – ideas that are fundamental to progressing teaching and learning in higher education in this age. Academics, as learning designers, must understand and reflect on their context and be able to manipulate the facets of which it is composed, however, it is now unhelpful to set digital technology apart from any other spatial facet. This is why an examination of spaces for learning and thinking about capabilities is so useful.

We are all convinced, to use the cliche, that curriculum design should be ‘pedagogy first’. That is, teaching should be driven by the need to engage the learner and to ensure that the learner attains the desired and intended learning outcomes. Continuing to make this point of ‘pedagogy first’ only highlights that there are some people who do not get this. If that is the case I suggest you have a quiet word with them!

The implication of the current discussion is that TEL implies technological determinism (a ‘technology first’ philosophy). It doesn’t mean that. Taking a spatial perspective, enhanced learning refers to the context we create for learning; how the many facets of our learning environment create a conducive space for learning, which are ideally active and student-centred. Technology is ubiquitous, takes many forms and is part of that spatial mix.

I strongly urge that we put ideas of technology determinism to one side now – it is a ‘bad’ thing. Period. Instead, enhancement remains useful where it is understood spatially in terms of the potential to extend, improve and adapt the spaces we use to foster engagement and learning. This begins to focus us on blended learning and hybrid learning space.

This paper, shared by @BeccaMcCarter, by Sian Bayn is very helpful.

Reference

Bayne, S. (2014). What’s the matter with ‘technology-enhanced learning’?, Learning, Media and Technology, 40:1, 5-20, DOI: 10.1080/17439884.2014.915851

Advertisements
Posted in active learning, learning space, Media-enhanced learning | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Who is the FAB academic? Thinking about engaging the future academic (team)

FAB academics

Introducing FAB – Flipped Active & Blended Learning

FAB-Toolkit-logoFAB is a playful idea I am using in my MELSIG work. Graham McElearney and myself will be leading the development of a toolkit for academics focused on curriculum innovation through the incorporation of digital video at the forthcoming #MELSIG event.

Behind the proposition of a media-enhanced Flipped Active & Blended (FAB) learning environment (I refer to it as the hybrid learning space in my new book) there are implicit questions about the future academic. If this flipped or flexible active blended space is what we want, how do we teach in the new space that we aspire to? What are the skills we need, and how do we engage academics at scale and develop their skills? How do we move our thinking, as academic developers, from working with the lone Innovators to working with the complex groups of Early Adopters and Late majorities (Rogers, 1962)? Assuming management buy-in, there is a massive collective leap to be made by course teams if real and meaningful innovation is to happen. This requires careful thought with regard to innovation models.

Currently, I am working with departmental leaders, subject groups and course and programme teams in our various faculties. This has necessitated a shift in my own practice, away from working with the individual academic innovators who think on the ‘bleeding edge’ of practice where development may have depended upon an unrealistic strategy based on a belief that ‘inspirational innovation will win out’. It won’t because it never has. Even excellent ideas are never just accepted and implemented. People and systems take a lot of convincing! Individual innovators are very important in breaking new ground, but leading-edge innovation is not, in itself, a precursor to inevitable innovation at scale. This needs something much more. The good ideas and exceptional practice of the lone academic innovator are always needed, but I am convinced we must work with course teams, subject groups and departments to make the difference that is really needed. And that is both challenging and inspiring.

The FAB Academic

As I work more with academic teams, and therefore increasingly less with inspirational lone innovators (though I do keep space in quiet corners of my diary for those energising conversations!), I am struck by the uneven knowledge of, experience of, and interest in, creating student-centred learning space. Where this equips us as being future-ready, it is difficult to point to convincing evidence and so the developer has to be sure, clear and fluent by turning to sound principles that inform academic practice. Evidence-informed principles give us the agility to convey what is important and structure future-focused conversations (Nicol & Draper, 2009). However, I don’t sense that the teaching teams I know talk that openly with each other about different forms of teaching, nevermind the future learning landscape, even though many individuals just get on with it and do readily embrace possibilities. I think we have seen such patterns of innovation around technology-enhanced learning over many years, but I am struck by how such innovation does not spread virally amongst course teams and how it often leaves our innovators isolated.

The role of the academic developer is not simply to facilitate such conversations but often to initiate and mediate them. That means being the critical friend to the management and the academic group, accepting uneven readiness to enhance practice and allowing the group to arrive at change points together.

It is my privilege as an invited academic developer to facilitate exploratory conversations amongst course teams and to understand and accept their reticence. The details of how this works are for another day, but here I want to note that good and sound ideas informing a shift to student-centred learning paradigm are only the start of creating a collective cultural commitment to new ideas of practice.

So, as we consider producing toolkits to inspire and support academic innovation at the forthcoming MELSIG event we must bear in mind that the toolkits we make are needed by teams. Rightly, team members will demand that we substantiate our propositions about FAB by relating ideas to principles, if not evidence, and if we are not able to address such demands, as developers, we should be aware that we may lose the faith of the groundbreaking individuals who go out on a limb year after year to engage their students deeply.

The FAB Academic, then, is found in groups, is confident and agile by being principle-focused.

References

Nicol, D. & Draper, S. (2009). A blueprint for transformational organisational change in higher education: REAP as a case study. Online at: http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/rap/docs/NicolDraperTransf4.pdf

Rogers, E.M. (1962/2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th edition. New York: Free Press.

Posted in Academic innovation, active learning, learning space, Media-enhanced learning, MELSIG, Possibilities | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Enjoyment, anticipation, challenge as factors affecting personal intrinsic investment #heutagogy

In our research-informed development activities looking at learner non-engagement with formative assessment, with group work or with engaging in feedback, it is becoming clear that the lack of space given to developing learner ‘buy-in’ or developing ‘want’ is highly significant in academic design and practice.

I saw a group of academics drawing out a graphic plan for a project-based learning approach on a whiteboard in a workshop I ran the other day. It was certainly an interesting and powerful approach, all things considered. But what was remarkable was, without any call for a summative explanation, the team carefully assigned marks to each milestone point in the design. 10% here, 10% there, 10% everywhere. Marks assigned to nudge the students on at each stage. These were experienced academics by the way. It was not appropriate to comment in class but the thoughts going through my mind were, “Why is this group excited by using an intrinsically motivating, student-centred, socially constructed methodology like this but uncritically drawn to use extrinsic devices at each stage?” The danger of not relinquishing this dependence on extrinsic rewards is that you underplay the need to heighten the intrinsic motivation so that it becomes an unstoppable force for engagement. The opportunity to shift the learning culture into one in which a making ethos is centrally valued becomes dissipated.

This reflects Phil Race’s point about focussing on what students want, not on what you think they need, when designing for engagement (Race, 2015). Race also makes a big point about the importance of intended learning outcomes, especially when they are personalised, and how they can help “in the briefing of students for longer elements of their learning, including projects, group tasks, practical work and field work” (p. 24). However, I want to go further and ask us to consider personalisation in terms of unintended learning outcomes.

A phrase came out of my discussion with a colleague yesterday as we discussed engagement design in relation to student group work: personal intrinsic investment in a social context. While we may talk about briefing active learning, we often do so in terms of explaining the activity in hand; being clear about what the student must do. We may also explain why a student will do this and point to the intended learning outcomes as a bold set of statements that rationalise the activity. We may, from experience, be aware of the unintended learning outcomes and their value. But to what extent do we look at this as our starting point for engaging students?

If we start with the unintended learning outcomes, and move from their explanation to their exploration, we start to see the richness of an activity in ecological terms. If we facilitate this well by asking students to individually note the challenges and opportunities for them personally in undertaking the activity we start to address the basis for their personal intrinsic investment. If we then ask them to compare their notes with those of their peers, we will find some cross-pollination. But mostly this space for exploration of challenges and opportunities is about developing an individual student’s appreciation of self-determination as a basis for learning. Such a rich understanding, I propose, can help to change our individual and collective dependence on extrinsic devices.

My point, in our work, as we consider learner engagement is that we must create a rich space for exploring personal intrinsic investment as a precondition to attempting engagement. We can think of this simply as creating space for fostering anticipation. A space for allowing each learner to find their energy and flow and allow them to monitor, modify and evaluate their personal outcomes through the activity.

Perhaps this is where ideas such as negotiated assessment, negotiated criteria or negotiated feedback come into play too. We begin to see how ideas to do with heutagogy and self-determined learning do not sit apart from directed and self-directed learning, but can be integrated within existing models at any level and according to the readiness of individual students.

These thoughts have developed as I’ve thought about ‘want’ and ‘enjoyment’ and their relationship to ‘challenge’ in discourses on engagement with learning. Abuhamdeh and Csikszentmihaly (2012) usefully reappraise the value of challenge in relation to motivation and conclude that it is not necessarily the panacea to engagement it is often claimed to be (e.g. Chickering & Gamson, 1987). These leaves us needing to think even harder about intrinsic motivation and, for me, personal investment is helpful.

Reference

Abuhamdeh, S. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2012). The importance of challenge for the enjoyment of intrinsically, goal-directed activities. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(3), 317-330.

Chickering, A. & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin, p3-7 Mar 1987. Online at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED282491

Race, P. (2015). The lecturer’s toolkit: a practical guide to assessment, learning and teaching, Fourth edition. London & New York: Routledge.

Posted in active learning, Assessment & Feedback, learner engagement | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Titling creative work – innovation and agency

As someone with a strong producer self-identity, I think crafting titles can be a useful way of capturing the essence of what you are trying to do and give you focus. This applies to books, articles, essays, student work, videos, songs, blog posts, photographs, paintings, performances… anything that involves a creative process.

A title is like the ultimate elevator pitch. It needs to grab attention and immediately explain what the artefact is about. I tend to do this in two parts – a catchy title followed by an explanatory subtitle.

The title of my new book has changed several times during its writing and bucks the two part method. Book proposal forms are quite prescriptive however: after all, publishers and their editors have much more experience of what works and I was particularly keen to listen to my series editor Professor Sally Brown. Brevity and clarity are characteristics of a good book title.

Book cover

So, we went with Reimagining Spaces for Learning in Higher Education. This works very well for me. I’ll reflect on the word ‘reimagining’ in a minute, but I’ll start at the end.

Higher Education – this is what the series is about – teaching and learning in higher education. This was always key for me. One of my drivers was the complacency I have experienced over many years in HE about academic innovation. By and large, many teachers accept there are ways of going about things that really do not need to be discussed or which are beyond their powers to change or influence. Similarly, university managers and estates personnel often have remarkably weak understandings of the relationship between teaching and learning and the space we experience. As our understanding of pedagogy continues to develop, especially in relation to the integration of technology, this has become a significant barrier to teaching excellence. This book is very much about setting an agenda for disrupting complacency and inspiring innovation in higher education.

Spaces for learning – not learning spaces? Learning spaces is associated by many with the built environment and it is unhelpful to use this nomenclature. The book is about the built environment in part, but it is about much more. It is about how we, as users of spaces, have more agency than we often realise. It is about any space we deem to be learning space. For example, I emphasise non-formal learning space and ideas of place as being generally neglected in our thinking but important for learning nonetheless. Ultimately, our interest as educators is in the learning experience each student has and how this in affected by space as it is conceived, perceived and used.

Reimagining – I was advised, rightly, to use this. Rightly, because it recognises the role of the reader. The book includes 27 case studies of innovative practitioners who, in my opinion, have reimagined space and put that imagination into practice. In each case the experience covered in the study has been significant for them, though many of the innovations may be quite familiar. Nevertheless, these people have not only reimagined (constructed an alternative view), but enacted this. They have remade their situation. This idea of remaking is important to me and the book. There is a chapter looking at the academic innovator. What comes from this is the idea of agency – innovators take responsibility for their environment. So, ‘remaking’ was an important idea, but perhaps overly esoteric for a title. It needs some explaining. Reimagining, on the other hand, is something that I think everybody does continuously. It is part of a state of being critical and creative.

Conclusion

Time spent with a title is time well spent and the act of committing to a title is both manageable and critical. For creative assignments, from essays to performances, we may ask students to use a given title and analyse it, but perhaps we should appreciate the learning value of constructing titles for our work more often.

Posted in BYOD | Leave a comment

Learning through Co-production #MELSIG_SHU

(CC) Joan-Grífols Human Pyramid Castells conc Dissabte

Learning through co-production makes sense to me. It suggests a form of purposeful, active learning with peers. This is the approach we are taking at the next Media-Enhanced Learning Special Interest Group (MELSIG) event in Sheffield on 21st June. It’s not new for MELSIG – we’ve run workshops, co-produced research and books, and developed social learning methodologies like the #Twalk. All of these have purpose, require active engagement in making things, and all are social in nature.

One of the premises for MELSIG, that’s always been there, is that it doesn’t matter what you know or think you are capable of doing. What matters first and foremost is that you decided to turn up. Not everybody does, not everybody can, but you have proven, by turning up, you want to commit some time and energy to what’s on offer.

At our first event in 2008 (when we were known as the Podcasting for Pedagogic Purposes SIG) it was clear that some people knew more and were more experienced than others. It was great that self-declared ‘novices’ worked alongside immodest self-declared ‘experts’! The reality, of course, is that everyone is valuable in these situations.

People who have particular knowledge and skills about the use of digital media to enhance learning are rarely fluent in all departments. They may know about media, technology, pedagogy and academic innovation and change in varying degrees. They may understand their university context, but not colleges, faculties, or particular disciplines. And vice versa. They may be a student, academic, technologist, developer or something else.

So, in a co-production we recognise that each of us has value and each of us is able to fill in gaps for each other.

At the MELSIG event we will use an emerging methodology called ‘toolkit in a day.’ It is based on this philosophy of co-production. We’ll be constructing three much needed toolkits. After the event we’ll use the toolkits to inspire and support academic innovation at our respective institutions. The toolkits will be on:

  • Podcasting for Pedagogic Purposes
  • Social Media for Learning
  • Flexible Active & Blended Learning

It will be great to revisit some of these areas and apply what we have learnt over the years in the form of practical and inspiring resources. This will bring the MELSIG toolkit count to five as last year we developed toolkits on Audio Feedback and Twalks.

We may arrive thinking we know nothing or very little, but we’ll leave knowing a lot about the three topics and we will have networked and made some good contacts and friends in the process.

Purpose: make something we all need using what know or want to know

Engage: we bring knowledge, skills and good questions that have value

People: we can do things together that we couldn’t dream of doing on our own

Posted in BYOD | Leave a comment

The habit of thinking differently by looking more deeply

motorway

An exploration of visual literacies and multiple intelligences

There are many reasons why I have committed to exploring the idea of learning walks in terms of learning space and many of those reasons have been discussed here previously. For the last four months, I have been undertaking a daily experiment to take a photograph a day and publish it to my Instagram and Flickr accounts. This has necessitated a change of lifestyle and the development of new habits resulting in changes in the way I see and think. In this post, I reflect on these real and noticeable changes in my ways of seeing and thinking, and the implications of this for how we understand the learning environment. This post is about visual literacies, therefore, and how we develop linguistic, spatial and kinaesthetic intelligences to use Howard Gardner’s (1983) theory of multiple intelligences (useful web resource), “a combination of heritable potentials and skills that can be developed in diverse ways through relevant experiences.”

Being a visual practitioner

book-coverFirst, a little background. I started out as a photojournalist working for an international press agency for several years before going freelance. Later I studied Fine Art for my undergraduate degree. During this time I became a committed printmaker, intrigued by the interplay of technical process and creativity. It is this idea of interplay between imaginative thinking and actual constraints that has continued to intrigue me as an educator; a frisson that is present in my approach to the study of learning spaces and informing the hypothesis for my new book Reimagining Spaces for Learning in Higher Education which is published this month (#RS4L).

Creative and critical thinking as a graduate outcome

So, I have been trained to look deeply and to think differently. This idea of difference is not cussedness nor obstinate contrariness, but a form of critical thinking that begins with curiosity and a belief that there are always other ways of thinking and these are usually worth exploring. It explains why there is a close relationship between creative and critical thinking and from that, I would argue, we begin to understand the value of artists to society. The term disruptive thinking captures this for me, although there is a danger that this can be misunderstood as destructive thinking. Instead, we need graduates of any discipline to be able to demonstrate possibility thinking based on a readiness to immerse themselves in problems and ideas. Whereas all too often we depend upon ideas and assumptions formed early on in life or given to us by our parents, mentors and bosses. This alone is a good reason to consider Mezirow’s concept of Transformative Learning (2000) which begins by asking up to challenge received wisdom through “a critical assessment of assumptions.”

Visual acuity as wellbeing

However, as I have grown older the acuity of my critical visual thinking has blunted due to my dependence on using existing critical thinking patterns – I know how my mind works well and I have tended to let it work that way. This isn’t so much a laziness, more a habitual expedience when life and work are too busy; a good enough strategy for a crowded mind.

In January I was ill. It gave me the opportunity to take stock of life-work habits. My love of walking and photography provided me with a ready answer to kick into a new phase of life while challenging the ‘unchallengeable’. This has produced great results!

The self-imposed requirement to fit in at least two hours of brisk walking and one photograph each day was initially daunting – but only briefly so because, having made the commitment, I rapidly discovered that walking to that extent is mind-freeing and not mind-less. It powers down the busy thinking channels and adrenalin that for many years I believed were my fuel; what kept me fit and focused. In addition, the requirement to take a photograph powered up and has reinvigorated, my visual thinking. However, importantly, this visual and cognitive acuity is itself an outcome of habitual practice. This relates critical thinking to the D3Bs – doing, being, belonging and becoming. While we often hear about fostering belonging and becoming, these ideas of visual literacy focus more on praxis – what we do and our habitual state or ways of being.

Technological mediation

Technology-mediated visual thinking is what I have done as a photojournalist, painter and printmaker. The technology demands and allows you to engage with the world differently by imposing a constrained process on creativity. We can think of it as a framework, a set of conditions, or an aspect of doing that does not require thinking. It is ‘the given’.

I really don’t want to come across here as too airy and mystical; a trap I believe many artists fall into as they translate conceptual thinking into mere words. I think there is an important point to be made here for any student’s critical literacy. Photography and other accessible creative processes (e.g. songwriting, poetry, writing plays, etc) set an expectation for making. For me this is: I walk with my iPhone and a commitment to take one photograph. The technical barriers to creativity, here, are very low and this allows me to scrutinise the world around me and make mental connections to ideas and problems towards resolution. Note, not to solve problems but to be in a state of working towards resolution.

Personal visual frameworks are important here. How and why do you look? What captures your attention? What matters to you, perhaps only you? This way of being and thinking is often mistaken as artistic self-indulgence, however, it is a temporary state towards articulation which itself is contextualised by and leads to co-operation. This brings us back to the idea of learning walks and their value as a social learning space. Walks, like the thinking they support, are formative. To use the cliche, ‘it’s about the journey, not the destination’. They are spaces for mulling over emergent ideas and ruminating with others on the significance of peripheral and perhaps mundane matters.

The vibrancy of social learning spaces

Space is experienced differently – we all bring different things to the spaces in which we congregate as we co-construct experience and then modify our knowledge accordingly. Learning space can be understood as inherently vibrant therefore, though often we fail to exploit this vibrancy. Social space is full of uncertainty and possibility and our experience of it is a constant process of interpretation and sense-making. It’s incredible we ever agree about anything! Being together, for example on a walk, allows us to influence and moderate each other’s thinking, as well as our own. The walk, as opposed to formal learning environments, tends to be socially fluid and non-confrontational. It is a convivial space in which we tend to be practised and relaxed.

The visual space is open-ended

While learning is essentially a uniquely personal experience often encountered in a social setting, it is open-ended and this is the clue to creating situations that intrinsically motivate students as learners. Open-ended situations may be threatening to some teachers because, by definition, they cannot be sure where it may lead; the irony is, of course, that learning is an experience that must make a connection with each learner in order for is to be meaningful.

The visual requires interpretation. The literal, on the other hand, can be understood as an attempt to explain and make solid ideas so they can be distributed for common understanding. Both have value to learning, but mediating and valuing open-ended thinking in education is less evident, for example, in course documentation because open-ended outcomes are harder to express and measure.

Valuing the wandering mind

Walking, thinking, talking and learning establish and value open-endedness and promote a sense of immersion. My walking with technology becomes purposeful, but not in an oppressive or stressful sense. The experience is simply framed and within this framework there is freedom to immerse myself in a continuous process of looking and thinking that, through a sense of immersion, reveals shapes, colours and ideas that were there all along but which were part of a background wash or noise. I know little about meditation or prayer, but I think this idea of immersive experience is similar.

My proposition, however, is that this can be mediated by walking with simple technology and a light sense of purpose and consequence. This works for the individual, as in my case, or socially as in the case of learning walks and other non-formal learning experiences where what was previously believed to be inconsequential finds some significance for and amongst the individuals involved.

Knowing how to trust this experience, as a teacher and a learning, is an indication of one’s visual literacy and one’s linguistic, spatial and kinaesthetic intelligence.

References

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

Mezirow,  J. & Associates (2000). Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey-Bass.

Posted in active learning, BYOD, learning space, Literacies and intelligence, Media-enhanced learning, open learning, Possibilities, walking | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Global #Twalkday

Twalkday logoGlobal #Twalkday

Wednesday 3rd October 2018

Theme: Doing, being, becoming, belonging and connecting

Time: 3pm GMT (but options for other time zones to be decided)

What is Twalkday?

The Twalk will be co-ordinated globally and is planned to coincide with the start of a new academic year. It provides teachers with an opportunity to think about and engage their new and returning students in ideas about their course. The #twalk will last an hour and will be structured around five ideas:

  • Doing – what we do on our course and how we learn
  • Being – our culture, philosophy and identity
  • Becoming – our personal and social aspirations as our learning identities grow into professional identities
  • Belonging – how we foster a sense of home
  • Connecting – how the D3Bs work together and how we relate to the world beyond our course

About #Twalks

A twalk is a structured learning walk in which social media is used to connect us and our ideas with individuals and groups located elsewhere by following a common conversational structure. It epitomises a hybrid learning space in which the experience of the local is amplified and enhanced by the shared connected experience. It epitomises a generative learning space in that participants are networked co-producers of knowledge: as you walk and talk you find ways of representing your thinking through tweets and images using a common hashtag (in our case #twalkday).

The practicalities

#Twalkday coincides with the beginning of the new academic year and is intended to be experienced primarily as a local exploration of what it means to be on a course. The addition of Connecting to the D3Bs, however, situates that sense of local identity in ideas of identity beyond the local experience of the course itself. Course leaders, student leaders and other academic leaders at colleges and universities around the world are encouraged to run a #twalk involving their own students and staff. The outline plans, routes, and discussion structure will be common and this means that local #twalk leaders only need to think about,

  • How to establish your walking group
  • How to map the discussion structure to local places and practices at your college or on your course
  • How to introduce, embed, then follow-up the outcomes of the twalk activity.

More details about the #twalkday itinerary will be posted using that hashtag. You are strongly encouraged to use it as you adopt the idea and to double hashtag posts with a local variant so that your local #Twalk group has a common space.

Social media space

While a learning walk involves walking a physical route in structured conversation, this is augmented by the use of social media space. Typically this has involved using a Twitter tweetchat as the method has a lot in common with a structured walk. However, other social media can be used. Instagram, for example, emphasises the visual and allows walkers to quickly capture significant moments and conversations. Using the hashtag in Google+ situates the activity within the context of an existing community, project or network. Similarly, where Facebook is familiar and established as an informal student space, Facebook Groups can work well.

Further information

Further information, guidance and outline maps will follow – watch this space!In the meantime, to find out more about #twalks, what they involve and how they are run look at our MELSIG Twalk toolkit.

Posted in belonging, Digital Placemaking, learning space, Media-enhanced learning, MELSIG, social media for learning, walking | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment