# data[].attributes.headline
An interesting and relevant article for us teaching at GSM London

# data[].attributes.subject
An interesting and relevant article for us teaching at GSM London

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As higher education stakeholders continue to debate the Augar Report, it is important that we remember to check in with actual students - especially on issues that have largely flown under the radar.

As described in the report, foundation years are one-year programmes integrated into degree courses (also called extended courses). They enable students who do not have all of the appropriate qualifications to enter their chosen subject. The Augar Report recommends doing away with all eligibility to finance for the foundation year (FY) and pushing students into Access to Higher Education (HE) Diploma programmes instead, which it insists are direct replacements.

The justification for this recommendation is that there is some type of conspiracy by universities to "entice students" to enter university, which according to them is not in their best interests. As David Kernohan pointed out on Wonkhe, there does not seem to be much evidence to support the panel"s harsh critique - and the argument that the impact on widening participation could be protected by a delayed implementation seems (at best) precarious.

In some of the informal feedback I receive from students in my role, comments on foundation years have always seemed positive. I set out to talk more with students to see if they felt the FY was in their best interest or not. It turned out that students" views were more complex than I had anticipated and far from the simplistic version of reality presented by Augar.

Building for the future

The students I talked to spoke about how essential the FY was to preparing them for further study by building their confidence and skills as students. Sam, a recent graduate, had a "bad 6th form experience". With the FY, she "felt this really prepared her for university life" and she learned how to "apply knowledge properly." A current student, Dan, said that the year "gave me an idea of what to expect from Uni life and how to organise and apply myself in lectures." Peter, a mature student, decided to do an extended course to change his career and found the FY "invaluable." Another current student, Alice, enjoyed that her FY modules included students from different course pathways, meaning that she was "able to have a bigger social circle" and feel less isolated.

For Sam, Alice and Dan, the FY offered the only option to attend university with their qualifications. With the extended courses, they were able to enter university on a similar footing to their peers and as Sam recalled, "feel like you're at the level you should be." Alice, who was also the first in her family to attend university, had not had prior knowledge of what university might be like. She said doing the FY gave her a "baseline expectation" moving forward and she found the remaining years of her course much less overwhelming, especially for "course work and paper writing."

When asked why they didnt consider Access to HE Diplomas, most had never considered the option. Sam thought it was only for mature students and Alice and Dan didn't know they existed. Peter had considered attending an FE programme, but found it a less appealing option as there is not clear signposting. Learning code to prepare for a computer science engineering course, Peter said this would have been like "being told you're moving to a different country but not where."

Regarding other options, Dan said, "I did look into doing another A level however the commute was too long, and it was expensive. Foundation seemed the best option." Doing the FY was the most attractive option as it would take place all in the same HE institution. That would mean continuity and the experience of university life from the start.

While everyone stated that the experience was positive overall, some did point out areas for improvement. Sam commented that the experience felt like being in a "nursery group" with students feeling that some modules were taught at a GCSE level. She also pointed out that while the programme does make university more accessible, it does so at the cost of student retention rates. Sam recalled being warned by lecturers in the FY "not to expect everyone to remain" which was "true in her experience."

The cost of FY was questioned by Sam and Dan as well. Sam suggested that fees for the foundation year should be similar to the sandwich year with fees capped. This was echoed by Dan who explained that there are basically no practical sessions or activities that validate the fees being equal to the standard degree year. They both also mentioned that taught material doesn't appear to change from year to year, so it is confusing as to what the full fee is actually spent on.

When asked to respond to the Augar quote about using foundation years to entice students that wouldn't normally enter university, graduate Sam said that the quote was "spot-on" in terms of making HE more accessible and to allow smaller universities to compete with larger universities. Maybe we should be asking the Augar panellists why this is such a bad thing?

Avoiding castles in the air

The Augar Report asks why more students don"t enter Access to HE Diploma programmes in favour of a foundation year, but the evidence seems clear enough. Students don't receive the same access to maintenance loans or grants as they would entering a foundation year. The review"s recommendation also undermines the desire of students, like the ones I spoke with, to gain the skills they needed to prepare in a university environment.

So given the option to pay less at a Further Education institution, but with less funding to sustain themselves, students are choosing higher loans, higher funding and the ability to enter HE.

These students all relayed their fears that closing financing to foundation years would close off a valuable opportunity for students, especially those from poorer backgrounds and "leaving them only accessible for rich students" as Dan pointed out. Denying funding for foundation years would surely lessen prospects for students that face both academic and socioeconomic barriers to traditional higher education routes.

Policy based on these recommendations risks losing sight of the big picture by focusing too much on fees. An overhaul to HE admission through a PR campaign for Access to HE Diplomas and a cut to foundation year financing is the recommendation from Augar. The students I spoke with worry that future students will lose an accessible pathway and widening participation will suffer. One group appears to have their priorities in order and I'd like to hear more of their stories.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shaky foundations? Student perspectives on foundation years | Wonkhe | Analysis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As higher education stakeholders continue to debate the Augar Report, it is important that we remember to check in with actual students - especially on issues that have largely flown under the radar. As described in the report, foundation years are one-year programmes integrated into degree courses (also called extended courses).

# data[].attributes.body
Student-centered Active Learning Environment with Upside down Pedagogies

# data[].attributes.headline
Does this mean metacognition works for students?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does this mean metacognition works for students?

# data[].attributes.body
"Desirable difficulty" "Effortful learning"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
One thing that research in cognitive psychology has gifted to us over the last decade or so, is clear evidence that learners are delusional when it comes to judgements about their own learning. The big name in the field is Bjork, along with many other high quality researchers, who says that learning is " quite misunderstood (by learners).... we have a flawed model of how we learn and remember ". There's often a negative correlation between people's judgements of their learning, what they think they have learnt and how they think they learn best - and what they've actually learnt and the way they can actually optimise their learning. In short; our own perceptions of learning are seriously delusional. This is why engagement, fun, learner surveys and happy sheets are such bad measures of what is actually learnt and the enemy of optimal learning strategies.

Most learning is illusory as it is too easy. Learning requires Desirable (accomplishable) and difficult learning that requires real effort for high-retention to take place. This is why so much online learning fails. To simply click on faces and see speech bubbles of text, drag and drop labels, choose true or false, even multiple-choice questions, rarely constitutes desirable difficulty. This is click-through learning.

The solution is to provide effortful, retrieval. This means moving beyond the traditional model of text/graphics punctuated by multiple-choice, towards cognitive effort, namely retrieval through open input. This effortful learning gives significant increases in long-term retention and recall. Online learning needs to adopt these techniques if it is to remain credible.

Retrieve and recall what you need to know Bjork (1975) results in much higher levels of retention. Rather than read, re-read and underline, look away and try to retrieve and recall what you need to know. Rather than click on True or False or an option in a short list (MCQ), look away, think, generate, recall and come up with the answer. The key point is that research has shown that retrieval is a memory modifier and makes your memory more recallable. Counter-intuitively, retrieval is much more powerful than being presented with the information. In other words it is more powerful than the original 'teaching' event.

Take a learning experience that you have probably been through many, many times - the airline safety demonstration. Try to think through what you have to do in the right order - find life jacket, put over head, then what..... not easy is it? Ah yes... inflate it through the blow tube... then there's the whistle. No. Many choose the 'inflate' option but to inflate it inside the aircraft is a BIG no, no. In fact, airlines should set up a spot in the airport, where you actually sit down then have to DO the whole thing. Next time you sit there, watch, then afterwards, close your eyes and retrieve the process, step by step - that also works.

Roediger & Karpicke (2006) researched studying v retrieval testing (without feedback). One week later the retrieval tested group did much better. They also asked them how much you are likely to remember in one week's time for each method - oddly, the majority of learners got it completely wrong.

Making errors is also a critical component of successful learning. According to Kornell, Hayes & Bjork (2009), generating the wrong thing, then getting it right, leads to stronger learning. The reason is that you are activating the brain's semantic network. Retrieval testing does better than reading or watching, as it potentiates recall. So are unsuccessful tests better than presentations? The work by Kornell (2009) shows that even unsuccessful testing is better. Retrieval testing gives you better internal feedback and works even when you get few or no correct answers. Testing even before you have access to the material, as a learning experience, also helps learning. Once again, almost bizarrely, Heustler & Metcalfe (2012) asked learners what worked best and they were largely wrong.

From Gates (1917) who compared reading and re-reading with retrieval, to Sptzer (1939) who halted forgetting over 2 months with retrieval in 3000 learners, to Roediger (2011) who got a full grade increases with retrieval techniques and McDaniel (2011) who increased attainment in science, the evidence is clear. For a clear summary of this, and detail on the research, this excellent talk by Bjork is pretty good.

In online learning the mechanics of this have also been researched. Duchaster & Nungester (1982) showed that although MCQs help you answer MCQs, they are poor in actual retention and recall. Kang (2007) showed that retrieval is superior to MCQs. At the really practical level, Jacoby (1978) showed that typing in retrieved learning was superior, as did MacDaniel (1986) and Hirsham & Bjork (1988) who showed that even typing in some missing letters sufficed. Richland (2005) did real world experiments that also proved efficacy.

We have the tools in Natural Language Processing and AI to do this, so technology has at last caught up with pedagogy. Let's not plough the same furrow we've plowed for the last 35 years. Time to move on.

I wrote, in a rather tongue in cheek manner (25 ways you which your e-learning sucks), about why I think most current e-learning is click-through and therefore low retention eye candy. This research shows that our methods of online learning are sub-optimal. The problem we face are that immediate success often means long-term failure. More focus should be given to retrieval, NOT presentation, clicking on items and multiple-choice. We need to be presented with desirable difficulties, through partial or complete open input. This is exactly what we've spent the last two years building with WildFire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
One thing that research in cognitive psychology has gifted to us over the last decade or so, is clear evidence that learners are delusional when it comes to judgements about their own learning. The big name in the field is Bjork, along with many other high quality researchers, who says that learning is " quite misunderstood (by learners)....

# data[].attributes.body
my Brain is Open: design and development of blended and online learning in higher education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Learning design * Learning theories * Multimedia learning * Open education @ myBRAINisOPEN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
About * Learning design * Learning theories * Multimedia learning * Open education @ myBRAINisOPEN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore the evidence-informed design and development of blended and distance learning based on instructional design, learning design and rich multimedia.