Editor’s Introduction 
 

 
Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 11, No 1, 2018 

 

This special technology enhanced learning issue of Compass contains a fascinating range of 

articles: critical appraisal of published reports on new technologies; skilling the visual effects 

artists of the future UK film industry; a student perspective of flipped learning; a series of 

insights into and reviews of various technological tools with application to higher education; 

self-assessment to counter student dissatisfaction with assessment feedback; technology-

related continuing professional development; a call for equal emphasis on verbal skills’ 

development in a digital age; aspects of course and activity design. It presents a multi-

faceted and inter-related picture of contemporary higher education that is rich indeed!  

The Horizon Reports – published by the New Media Consortium (NMC) – come under 

appraisal in a paper by Sonja Grussendorf which seeks to redress a perceived lack of critical 

engagement with them in the academic literature. Sonja is concerned that these reports, 

popular among the educational technology community and influential for their predictions of 

technologies likely to be of value to the higher education sector, should be scrutinised 

properly; after all, they influence purchasing decisions and thus, inevitably, pedagogy as 

well. The paper, in some detail and with creditable objectivity, explores the degree of 

influence wielded by the reports and assesses their predictive accuracy and consequent 

impact; it also seeks to discover whether they subscribe to any ideology and, if so, whether 

this is made explicit by the NMC.  

 ‘VFX HE Online Mentoring Programme 2017’, a project led by the University of Greenwich, 

set out to provide students with an in-depth understanding of visual-effects (VFX) 

productions and of the hard and soft skills required for making them; to do so, it harnessed 

the expertise of three professional facilities. The British Film Institute has identified 

widespread VFX skills’ shortages in the UK and the industry is having to source talent from 

abroad. The higher education sector thus needs to respond, by equipping UK students with 

appropriate training. Jin Zhi’s case study outlines the two-part, technology-enhanced 

mentoring and learning programme in Greenwich’s Department of Creative Professions and 

Digital Arts: provision to the students of exclusive learning videos made by the three VFX 

companies; end-of-week online question-and-answer sessions for the students to interact 

directly with the companies’ senior creative artists. The study also provides key findings and 

offers recommendations for the future versions of the programme. 

Gemma Boden and Fon Yan Li offer a balanced and well-referenced analysis of the 

application of flipped learning and is a positive and helpful addition to the literature on this 

topic. The authors draw on personal experience of well-managed flipped learning to argue 

that this approach has much to offer. Their view is that it overcomes – by means of such 

directed prior learning as recommended reading and the watching of relevant videos – 

disparities in student understanding. It thus improves classroom engagement with, and 

engenders enthusiasm for, a range of stimulating activities; the learning becomes student-

centred and the flexible classroom a safe space for interaction, discussion and debate. The 

paper makes clear that it is incumbent on the teacher to be proficient in the method and 

sensitive to individual learning styles, and on the student to put in the effort to complete the 

preparatory learning.  

Identified problems with the traditional assessment model of a University of Greenwich land 

law course, together with changes proposed for professional legal education, led to 

alternative assessment methods using learning technology. Sandra Clarke offers a review of 



Editor’s Introduction 
 

 
Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 11, No 1, 2018 

 

this process and considers, in a very balanced appraisal, the advantages and challenges of 

using the Moodle Workshop tool for a new formative, peer-reviewed and peer-marked 

exercise and the Moodle Quiz tool for the online replacement of a seen written exam. Some 

very helpful guidance is offered for the design of multiple-choice questions in the latter case. 

Sandra also makes very clear the need, especially for assessing the full range of skills 

demanded of lawyers, for an appropriate selection of modes of assessment across the 

course. 

A comparative case study explores the respective contexts, institutional drivers and 

evolution of the use of the Carpe Diem Learning Design methodology by Glasgow 

Caledonian University (to support the development of online programmes) and the University 

of Northampton (to develop blended programmes). Julie Usher, Sheila MacNeill, and Linda 

Creanor provide a meticulously-detailed account of these institutions’ applications of Carpe 

Diem, concluding that it is well-suited to purpose, as long as some customisation and 

contextualisation is incorporated to meet institutional priorities. Though the two examples are 

not alike, common benefits and challenges emerged; the paper’s appraisal of these certainly 

fulfils the authors’ desired aim of contributing to the collaborative narrative about what is 

involved in implementing and embedding a formal learning-design process. 

A technology review, containing the careful analysis of six (free or free-with-paid-add-ons) 

web-based ‘student response systems’, intends to help others to choose from the many such 

tools on the market; Martin Compton and Jason Allen consider these six the best available, 

on the basis of functionality and ease of use, and highlight their unique selling points. (The 

paper endorses the deliberate incorporation of student-owned mobile devices into teaching 

and learning sessions to harness the associated benefits of such hardware and to minimise 

possible in-class misuse.) Following their informative analyses, Martin and Jason confirm 

that all six can improve student engagement and interaction and suggest that teachers 

should be encouraged to try out at least one of them, with appropriate training and support 

and with due consideration of data protection guidelines. They add that teachers ‘should 

always know what they expect of students and apprise them of those expectations and of 

what they will be sharing.’ 

Kahoot!, a game-based student response system, is examined by the authors of a review of 

this software. Gemma Boden and Lindsay Hart say that its bright colours, graphics and 

music make it an ideal medium for enthusing students in the classroom. Accessible via 

personal mobile devices, it can be deployed by the teacher – using a computer and the class 

screen – at the beginning of a session, to assess prior learning or, at the end, to review key 

points or test what the students have learnt in class. Essentially, it presents topic-related 

quiz questions and participants select from multiple-choice answers on their devices. The 

paper’s provision of a SWOT analysis of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and 

threats does lend some balance to this review, but Gemma and Lindsay confirm that their 

own observations of it in class and students’ informal feedback both support an overall 

favourable judgement of its merits. Not only is it straightforward for staff to use, but it also, 

from visible (and aural!) evidence, stimulates engagement and improves concentration. 

Perhaps, best of all, it is free. 

Formative assessment in Mathematics by means of Moodle’s quiz option is examined in 

relation to the development of students’ understanding by means of a series of non-



Editor’s Introduction 
 

 
Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 11, No 1, 2018 

 

assessed online quizzes. Steve Lakin, whose paper considers the application of this 

technology, discusses the opportunity of creating various versions of the same question; the 

multiple-choice options can be specified, to include one correct answer and other variants, 

covering common mistakes that students make. Feedback indicated that students found the 

approach very useful for exam preparation, though Steve clearly identifies the application’s 

limitations: Moodle doesn’t have many important mathematical functions built into it, so that 

questions do have to be manipulated to allow for any randomisation; it doesn’t allow for any 

graphical randomisation.  The conclusion: ‘useful, but limited.’ Steve, however, does see its 

possible application to other subjects with a core mathematical or statistical element.  

John Casey’s paper focuses on web annotation, its tools and standards to consider their 

‘potential to support learning and teaching across a range of activities using existing web 

resources’, for ‘annotations can be published, shared, managed and curated, as well as re-

published via social media channels.’ Web annotations are overlaid on the original web 

page, are separate from it and are under the annotator’s control; to a third-party viewer, 

however, they co-exist with the original content. There are thus implications for copyright, 

authorial reputation and ownership. John explains that there is opportunity in web annotation 

for interaction both with content and other web users – marginal notes can ‘become media-

rich and shared with others’. In ‘face-to-face’, online and blended classrooms’, annotation 

(whether of text, image or audio-visual resources) combines traditional and digital literacies. 

 

Against a carefully-considered theoretical background, David Thompson presents the study 

of an attempt to counter evidence of student dissatisfaction with assessment and feedback 

practice, in this case in undergraduate film production courses, and to deal with ‘the 

characteristic indifference and laissez-faire attitude of students engaged in film-making.’ The 

activity, undertaken immediately prior to the students’ ‘live’ summative feedback from the 

teacher, involved the students’ written appraisal of their own work against the original brief 

for the task and their identification of aspects needing development. This was followed by a 

digitally-recorded focus group, allowing the students to reflect upon their self-assessment 

experience. Such qualitative data provided David with two key findings: to appraise without 

knowing what action to take constitutes a barrier to student engagement with their feedback; 

‘being able to maintain a distance from and perspective of their work’ helps students to 

assume personal responsibility for what they do. 

Huge investment in technology in the higher education sector has not necessarily produced 

the transformative effect on teaching, learning and assessment that might have been 

expected. Continuous professional development (CPD) must not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ 

approach, according to Timos Almpanis and Martin Compton, the authors of a very cogent 

rationale for CPD emphasise, not upon the technological functions of tools and virtual 

learning environments (VLEs), but upon individualised and needs-focused applications that 

really do transform pedagogy. With their background in and experience of offering formal 

technology training for academics, Timos and Martin are convinced that user-friendly, ‘quick 

win’, cloud-based apps are the way forward – they have been ‘using, testing, collecting and 

disseminating these tools for several years.’ Furthermore, they advocate a shift away from 

the culture of having CPD ‘done’ to staff and for staff themselves to have ownership of the 

materials used. In a nutshell, the message here is that such institutional platforms as VLEs 

may still serve as a foundation, but fitter-for-purpose cloud tools may well encourage staff to 



Editor’s Introduction 
 

 
Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 11, No 1, 2018 

 

be much more committed to and convinced by technology-enhanced learning strategies 

overall. 

Online courses come under the scrutiny of Scott Malcolm Goudie, the author of an opinion 

piece which weighs up the advantages of acquiring quick and easy evidence of continuing 

professional development (CPD) against the concomitant failure of the courses themselves 

to stimulate real learning. Easy-to-guess or simple-to-deduce answers to multiple-choice 

questions that render unnecessary any pre-assessment study of online learning materials 

may achieve a comfortable CPD box-tick, but can hardly be said to confirm the competence 

and credibility of individuals or their professions. Personal experience and careful reference 

to the associated literature lead Scott to conclude that online CPD courses must be 

meaningful: ‘failure assessments’ – prior to release of learning materials – to highlight gaps 

in knowledge and understanding; problem-based learning that requires study of the 

materials to achieve answers and solutions; improved design of these courses to make them 

pedagogically sound; accreditation of the courses according to proven impact on 

professional development; massive open online courses (MOOCs) to facilitate real-time 

group CPD sessions. The article ends with the hope that new technologies will help with 

course design and encourage more constructive responses from learners. 

In our digitally-connected age, says Nicky Garsten, the author of lively argument which 

emphasises the importance of face-to-face communication, we should not neglect students’ 

verbal skills. Though tech-savvy students may prefer to communicate by messaging or email 

and though they must certainly have excellent digital capabilities to be employable, this 

opinion piece points out that employers really do want graduates to be able to talk well. 

Nicky outlines some key ways of countering students’ reticence: just being aware that 

speaking in seminars may be stressful for some students; arranging seating to enhance a 

group’s visual and verbal interactions; consistently and explicitly demonstrating in seminars 

that students’ views, uncertainties and personal knowledge are all valued; making 

student/staff one-to-one consultations welcoming and supportive. The piece ends with one 

clear message: staff should be mindful of the importance of developing in students all forms 

of communication – digital, written and verbal. 

A case study offers an overview of the experience of ‘designing a serious game for a large 

inter-disciplinary course at the London School of Economics and Political Science.’ The 

intention was that the game should enhance student engagement on a course with a mixed-

ability cohort. The authors of this paper, Sarah Jane Leach, Geraldine Foley, Jose Javier 

Olivas Osuna, and Aggie Molnar, set the scene and offer the pedagogical rationale, before 

outlining the game itself, the design process and the challenges. The meticulous evaluation 

process included observation of a significant proportion of the game-playing sessions (there 

was considerable variation and tutor interpretation of the rules!) and the acquisition of 

qualitative data from both students and staff. Overall, there are some fascinating insights 

here into the benefits and challenges of deploying game-based learning, especially on such 

a large scale. The authors conclude that more time for training the staff to practise the 

running of the game and the managing of the post-game activity would enhance what was a 

generally well-received exercise. 

The STEEPLE (seven environments in which organisations must function – Socio-cultural, 

Technological, Economic, Ecological, Political, Legal and Ethical) model is usually deployed 



Editor’s Introduction 
 

 
Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, Vol 11, No 1, 2018 

 

in business organisations’ strategic decision-making, but an article in this issue of Compass 

describes its helpful application to course design for the PGCert HE in a University of 

Greenwich partner institution in Trinidad and Tobago. Peter Colin Kelly explains how each of 

the STEEPLE environments relates to the process of curricular design; though not a course-

design model itself, STEEPLE can be very useful in supporting those models which are, in 

order to make courses and modules flexible and responsive to the demands and 

expectations of society and the working world in which students will be employed. 

I hope you enjoy reading through the articles, opinion pieces and case studies in this special 

edition as much as we have enjoyed putting this issue together. 

 

Danielle Tran 

Editor