 Now, nothing. Joanna, I've started the recording, so feel free to begin whenever you're ready. Hello, Kristina, sorry. I'm struggling a bit with the slides that I'm trying to share on my screen, but what is happening, they are moving. As though there was a mode that it's not an animation, so I'm wondering what is happening here. I'm gonna try to do it again. Have you tried the bottom? At the bottom, there's a couple of options there that might work for you. So when you open the PowerPoint presentation, there should be a full screen option at the bottom. I don't believe it helps with the automation. I think I'll stop it. I don't know what happened. Okay, in the West Coast scenario, I'm not gonna go into full slide mode if this keeps on happening. So I'm gonna try again, and I'm gonna wait for a tiny bit. It keeps on just running. I think it's probably not just for me. I don't know what happened. So what we might have to do is basically to just run this presentation and not a full screen mode. I'm really sorry about that, but I don't know why it's happening at all. So hello, everyone. Hello, everyone. I'm Joanna Wilde. I'm a senior digital learning designer in ASP, and I will be co-presenting today with my two colleagues, Veronica Scheffler and Ravi Murugasen. Veronica is a digital learning designer at our organization and Ravi is technical developer. What is the plan for today? I will give you a bit of a background to what in ASP is, what we do, and the study we have conducted recently. We will ask you then to vote on the parts of the presentation you would like us to prioritize. We will present the findings from the study, but we will break up our presentation with your reactions and discussions, and then we will wrap up with main conclusions from the study at the very end. So about in ASP, very briefly, in ASP has been around for a long time, coming up to 30 years, and our vision is research and knowledge at the heart of development, and our mission is to support individuals and institutions to produce, share, and use research and knowledge to transform lives. We have been working online for many years, initially setting up online systems for self-end journals, training journal editors on how to improve the quality of their journals, training researchers on how to publish and librarians on the aspects of copyright and licensing. And initially, quite a lot of this training was face-to-face, but then we saw that the demand for training was huge and we could reach by far more people if we delivered more of this training online. So gradually, our online learning offer has increased and it includes MOOCs, specialist courses for smaller audiences, self-study tutorials, e-mentoring opportunities, and online journal clubs. However, we recognize that online learning is complementary to more traditional approaches to capacity development, so we do not simply seek to replace approaches such as workshops with online modes of delivery. Instead, we use digital technology to enhance what we do. It gives us, for example, an extra space where learning can happen in between and after the face-to-face interventions. It ensures continuity of learning for a series of engagements rather than just one of initiatives. It helps us embed learning into the real context of work and at the point of need. It also provides an opportunity to do things differently, to use both digital and physical spaces to their greatest advantage and the best combination. So online learning is part of a bigger learning journey and a wider capacity approach. We have been systematically collecting data on our learning interventions and used feedback to improve what we do. Last year, we decided to conduct a synthesis of data on our TEL initiatives collected over the past decade from roughly 2011 to 2020. And we commissioned an external research consultant to do this analysis for us. So the types of data included in the analysis were learning analytics and participant feedback data. We analyzed data for more than 20 different online and blended learning activities or courses, many of which we run on multiple occasions. Data were combined across courses to ensure robustness. We included also qualitative data from semi-structured interviews within our partners. We interviewed around 20 in-house partners about their experience of TEL technology-enhanced learning and the impacts of specific initiatives in the period between 2015 and 2020. We also included secondary literature that was produced in us throughout the years into the synthesis. This included 30 published reports and blogs in addition to a range of internal reports and documentation. And finally, we also reviewed academic literature which considers technology-enhanced learning either exclusively or partially within the context of the global self. We included a total of 30 books and articles in our synthesis and these formed a backdrop against which to interpret our data. So what then is the broader picture regarding TEL and the global self? There has been a dramatic expansion in TEL since 2010, which is reflected in number of publication. This has been further accelerated by COVID pandemic recently. A large body of the literature is concentrated on MOOCs. There is much less written up about other approaches to online and blended learning. Discussion in the literature focuses on a number of key dimensions and presents online learning as a negative alternative to blended and face-to-face learning. And issues that are being pointed out include a lack of accessibility for women, for people living in rural areas and those with lower level of educational attainment, poor completion rates, overall pressures of time, whether learning is asynchronous or synchronous and lack of interaction with peers and trainers. We were able to identify six assumptions, prevalent in the academic literature around TEL and the global self. We then tested these assumptions against INASP evidence and today we wanted to present to you the results of this exercise. For each of the assumptions, what we will do is to present our findings and whether they support or challenge existing literature. We will explain what we think contributed to these results and then we will illustrate our approach with one case study. Before doing that, we would like you to tell us which of the common assumptions would you like us to prioritize in today's presentation. There are six of them and we have a mentee code and we would like you to go to mentee.com, put the code in and rank from one to six where one is your first choice and six is your last choice in terms of the assumptions you would like us to present. It will help us to structure the presentation in a way that we can present the result, then have a discussion about the results for each and every assumption and then if we lack the time to present one or two, the slides, we will make them available anyway via OLD and we will be able to read upon the ones that we haven't managed to present today. So let's see how it goes. I'll hand over to Veronica now. I'll stop sharing my screen and Veronica will share the code. You can see the code as well. And we can go on into the voting. Veronica, are you gonna share the screen with the voting code as well or shall I come back to the slide? I hope it's coming up now. Can you hear me? Yeah, you can see that. I can see that. Okay, and you can hear me as well? Yeah, very well. Good, good. Good, then I think we will give you a couple of minutes so that you really can make your choice and then I will share the results so that everybody can see what was prioritized today. If there are any questions or you have any difficulties with Mentimeter, then just let us know. But I can see that there are voices coming in now. I assume that most of people who I wanted to vote have voted now because many coming in are anymore. So I'm sharing now the results, but if you're still busy with voting, then you will see it will still be counted. Also currently, the first choice is Interaction Online is limited. Second choice is Technology is a barrier. Third choice is One Size Fits All as Problematic. Fourth choice is Lower Level of Equity in Participation. Fifth, Blending Face-to-Face and Online is Better. And Sixth, Timetabling Online Learning is Challenging. Don't think that there are further votes coming in. Jenna, have you noted down the... Yes, I've tried to note them down and we can now stop I think sharing. I hope I got it all. Timetabling is the last one. Okay, and we can start with the first one. Just Interaction Online is limited and I'll just start sharing again the slides. And I'm stopped sharing now and you should be able to take over again. Coming back to the slides. Let me know if you can see them. Veronica, are they visible again, the slides? Yes, yes, we can see. Okay, great. What I'm gonna try and do is to start the presentation mode again because it worked for me on my computer. I don't know why when I start doing it here on Blackboard, it's just not working. So I'm gonna try and see if it works this time. And it does stop running by itself. That's great. So assumption four that we uncovered in the literature is that TEL does not support participant interactions well, which has a negative impact on learning outcomes. So our varying approaches to encourage interaction between participants and their facilitators and peers are viewed extremely positively. The vast majority of our participants feel that level of moderation and facilitation was enough to complete the course successfully. More than three in 10 identified facilitator support on the forums as actually a success factor and a similar proportion cited interaction with other participants on the forums as a success factor contributing to their completion. So in this terms, the why the literature is at odds with our findings, we also have found that most participants found feedback they received from peers useful and many appreciate the benefit of giving feedback themselves. It's similar on our specialist courses. For example, 95% of participants in the course on improving journal quality for journal editors rated the feedback they received from the facilitator as useful. In another small course on transformative learning and teaching 14 out of 16 participants identified facilitator support as one of the success of the course while 10 single out that Zoom drop-in clinics were particularly useful to them. Even when our online activities involved no interaction like in our self-study tutorials, only a small minority identified this as a problem. So just between 12 and 16% of participants in our self-study tutorials said that a lack of moderator or facilitator support was a problem. However, when a tutorial was offered then in a light touch facilitation mode dropouts reduced by half. And I'm gonna talk about it a bit more later. So what do we think has contributed to the key findings? For strong focus on creating a community of learners in each course is definitely a factor that we find is contributing to these findings. So definitely we try to understand when international collaboration will be of value to people and when to create smaller, more intimate groups of learners. Another point is the guest facilitation model. We draw in our MOOCs from a global community to recruit guest facilitators on the course. And this model has been hugely successful in ensuring good interaction rates in the discussions forms. As you know MOOCs in thousands and it's very often difficult to have good facilitated in discussions on the form whereas with guest facilitation model we get a huge number of facilitators helping out to run successful discussion in our forums. As it when it comes to group work and authentic assessment we try to embed it in every single course. And so we have quite a lot of peer review activities and peer support activities which we also think contribute to success. Our courses are mostly asynchronous for flexibility and inclusion but we organize live sessions to create a feeling of presence among the learners and facilitators. We have live drop-in clinics to discuss particular issues or to troubleshoot problems. For example, using Zoom as this is a platform widely used in the developing countries but we also use live text-based sessions via WhatsApp. We mostly use tools that people are comfortable with on our courses or are already familiar with. So for example, Zoom is widespread in developing countries we work with but Microsoft Teams is not and very often create problems. We try not to add more than one new or less familiar to a course. We are keen to introduce people to doing things differently with technology but we do not want to prioritize technology over learning. Finally, in our self-study tutorials we build in what we call the facilitator voice into the content by developing reflective exercises and activities and then providing examples of solutions and commentaries. So to create this feeling of presence that there is somebody actually providing some commentaries and feedback on the activities that people are completing. In 2021 we launched our critical thinking course both a self-study tutorial and in light facilitated version. Facilitation involved supporting participants through announcements about the expected learning progress once or twice per week answering technical questions on a technical forum and encouraging participants to share their ideas and questions in a content related discussion forum. So, facilitation was mainly restricted to keeping an eye on the post to make sure that discussions were respectful and relevant. It was a light touch facilitation as I mentioned. So then we compared feedback data from the two courses and participants in the facilitated version of the course reported slightly more positive outcomes than those who completed the self-study version. However, what is more interesting is that those who began the facilitated course were almost twice as likely to complete it compared with those who undertook the self-study tutorial. So there is some evidence that the presence of interaction may secure higher compression rates perhaps by motivating participants or sustaining the interest. So that's our findings around interaction. As you can see, the findings that we've got are at odds with what we found in the wider literature from 2010 to the recent literature in the global self. And we would love to now open up a conversation around this, maybe around the question like which of our findings resonate with your own experience? What approaches have worked for you in terms of facilitated interaction? And what challenges have you experienced if you worked in this area with the global self? I'm going to stop sharing for now and see if we have people who would like to join the conversation with us. I'm not sure if we have anything already in the chat panel, not really. Is there anyone who would like to share their experiences or tell us if the findings resonate with them? There is Will raising hands. Hi, you can hear me okay. Yeah, very well, thank you. Hi, yeah, I just thought it was interesting about the way you talk about the interaction and the importance of that with the facilitator. One of the things I felt is when you planned interactions online, it is a tendency for the designer to be more limited and anticipate more issues that you wouldn't have to do in face-to-face. So learning activity, face-to-face, you can quickly correct misunderstandings, provide extra support and assess continually by looking at faces. I think not being able to see body language faces, it means you can't respond on the fly the way you typically would face-to-face and once you're aware of that, it colours your design of any kind of interactions online. Yeah, that's very true. Thank you for sharing that. It totally resonates with our experience, yeah. Anyone else would like to share their experience in this area? Or shall we just move on to the next assumption, which is the barrier to technology from what I'm reading. So if there is nobody else raising her, they're coming, I'm just gonna share the slides again and we're gonna go into the second assumption. I hope you can see my slides again and let's go to technological barriers. Ravi? Yeah, hi. Right, thank you Joanna. As I mentioned in the chat, there could be some background noise, could be loud, I don't know how my computer filters out the noise because it's Diwali over here. So I'll try to do my best to go to narrate clearly. So this is one of the assumptions we investigated. Technological barriers to online participation are significant. So the key findings are that a sizable minority of our participants do experience barriers to online learning, but their experience is, all these barriers which lead to non-completion or non-participation are more likely due to infrastructure issues rather than usability issues. In a sense it's more about access to the internet and even electricity and that's something we see every now and then in our feedback survey, electricity issues also come in the way, not to mention the internet access can be intermittent or limited data. So here, and also percentage of the country's population, most of our learners are in Africa and some countries internet access is quite limited. Another thing, I think especially over the past year over the pandemic, so time management has turned out to be quite a challenge for a lot of our learners. There's a lot of home working online happening and with online courses it can be more difficult time management. Next slide please. Thank you. So we think the usability issues are not pronounced. The infrastructure issues we can't do anything about that but in terms of their actual experience on learning with us, these are our thoughts on this, on the use of the utility. We think modal LMS is a good choice for two reasons. There are many content and activity tools that fit our low bandwidth approach. There is, we used mostly text based content or otherwise we provide text alternatives as well. And modal is also quite popular in the global South and some of our participants may have encountered it before. Our course materials are compatible with mobile devices for small screens. We provide downloadable resources and whenever we use videos or other multimedia we provide text based alternatives. And also one factor is that our participants, most of them study or work in higher education settings where there is typically better access to internet and computers than perhaps for the average person in any given country. So that's something that we've kind of benefited from that the nature of our participants, their work environment is somewhat conducive for them to participate in online courses. Next slide please. So a case study, this is not to do with modal or online courses but something else. For online journal clubs, a journal club is where a group of researchers get together to discuss journal papers. At the authoring project we run research writing MOOCs and there are other elements providing of researcher support. So one of which is journal clubs. We set up online journal clubs in 2017, not 2019, sorry. And we initially selected different platforms. We set up one on WhatsApp or maybe two on WhatsApp, two on WhatsApp, one on Facebook and one on an email list. And slowly we saw that WhatsApp was a place where participants were more engaged in discussions and sharing their thoughts. And we switched the other journal clubs to WhatsApp as well. And here's a quote from a program specialist that in essence was also the authoring project manager. And we've seen, sometimes some of us in earlier many used to travel to our partner countries. So in Africa and Asia, and I live in India and this something is my own lived experience. So a lot of people use WhatsApp for professional communication, not just personal interaction. So, or maybe some of the other mobile apps. So this WhatsApp has been useful or has proven successful for this kind of interaction. So, yeah, that's the next slide. Okay, so do you have any thoughts on, do you have similar experience or yeah, can use the chat window or speak with us? Speak with us. You would be great to hear about your experiences in this area, especially technological barriers. And I'm not sure if anybody would like to speak. I will give you a little bit longer and if there are no people who want to speak then we will proceed to the next assumption. I can't see anything in chat either. We've got Sheldon. Hello, thank you. Thanks for that. Hi, thank you. I was really, I was just curious about kind of the, there was a kind of mention of kind of designing for mobile devices. And I was just curious to know kind of what your process is for ensuring kind of things are mobile friendly. It's because I know that, you know, just design for a smaller screen can take very specific kind of expertise. So, thanks Sheldon. So, it's kind of a little spectrum of mobile compatibility. We have our MOOC, sort of the flagship MOOC research writing where it's very, very compatible with the, you know, the Moodle mobile app and we've, and that's partly, and the way we started though was actually even before we thought of the app it was a number of years back and we wanted to keep that course as low bandwidth as possible and it was pretty much, it's really quite text-based yet interactive. We use an external tool called EXE Learning which is quite a low bandwidth authoring tool and it turns out it works well even with the app and it's responsive. The HTML content that's produced is responsive for small screens. And many of the Moodle activities over time have become more compatible with mobile learning. It's, we've not invested extra effort in the technology side. We're just trying to work with what Moodle provides. And in some of our other courses where there is an emphasis on a kind of, in our kind of pedagogical design we imagine the learner sitting at a computer because there's a lot of discussion. There's switching between learning resource, clicking on the link to a contextual forum, coming back and we, so we advise the learners that, you know, this course is ideally to be, you've got to sit at a computer to take the course but parts of the course, they can certainly engage with it online. So it's a bit of a spectrum of how mobile compatibility. So I wouldn't say all of our courses are 100% compatible with the Moodle mobile app. No, it's not really that. And some of our courses we encourage, you know, computer-based study while allowing for the option of some mobile study. And we check the course materials with on a mobile, on an internet browser on a phone, just to see if it's showing up all right. Thank you, Ravi. Is there anyone else who would like to ask a question or who would like to share their experience on dealing with barriers to technology, including designing for mobile learning? Jenna, there is a question on the chat by Will, saying, do you have any assumed access to technology when planning a course? What has been the general assumption of access connectivity? So I'm not sure, Ravi, would you like to answer this question? Yeah, I can answer maybe one part of it, say with the researcher. So I've been, because those are the courses I've been more closely involved in, even in the, yeah, the planning stages. Otherwise, I'm more involved in the development stage. So with the researcher-focused courses, yeah, in a way, the answer is yes. We have, we assume that the participants, we, they are researchers typically with at least an undergrad degree and often working at a university or a research setting. And some of them travel for like field work, actual, you know, research in the field and far away from a computer. But the, yeah, we assume that most of the researcher participants do have access to a computer or even when they're traveling to a, you know, a mobile phone. So that I can say for the researcher-oriented courses and I'll leave it to Joanna or Veronica to add to that. Yeah, I think that one of the key things that we do, we try to assume as little as possible in terms of connectivity and therefore, as Ravi mentioned, there is a lot of text-based content in our courses, but because there is also a bigger appetite for media, videos, multimedia generally, we do include them in our courses. We just make sure that this content is not stopping the others for accessing the key elements of the course. So it's optional, it's designed, it's brought in a course in a way that it doesn't preclude the others from actually accessing more text-based resources and we provide for downloadable resources. So we do not expect people to be online, they can download the resources in advance. So trying to really design for kind of assuming the least in terms of accessibility. And I think it's worked to a certain extent because although, you know, our findings are confirming that that's still a problem that there is a sizeable minority that will actually drop out because of the connectivity and internet issues that the big majority of the people on our courses are able to complete them one way or the other. And that's great. And I think that now the global pandemic from what we've experienced is that it's also started changing the perceptions of online learning and the global stakeholders and there is some investment into the infrastructure as well. So hopefully this will change pretty soon. Thank you very much Will and Sheldon for coming in with questions. I think we are going to move to the next assumption and in my notes, okay, we have still Julie Ansin, he can talk about mobile learning in Nigeria. Yes, please come in. That's great, Julie. Hello there, yeah. Hi. I don't know if I've got video. I have a PhD student who has just completed a PhD on mobile learning in a university in Nigeria. So he was looking at the student usage of Nigeria and all the barriers including technology and other issues amongst engineering students. And he found the same sort of findings that you were talking about that the barriers are the cost of having the mobile access. So the students love to use the mobile technologies but they couldn't afford the connection so they would download the mobile apps and materials while they were at the university and then take it away and study it at home on their mobile. So they preferred apps that were self-contained that they could download and then use offline rather than online ones that needed a connection as well. And that was due to cost. But what was the other? Yeah, so the barriers seem to be similar to the ones that you're talking about. Thank you so much, Julie, for this. It's very interesting and confirms our recent observations during the COVID pandemic because we've noticed as well that some inequities in access are just being accelerated in a way or being deepened in some areas over the other. So there are some universities who are capable of negotiating internet bundles with local providers and then therefore kind of making sure that their students and their teachers have a better access to technology but in other areas, this is extremely difficult and we've heard of students walking miles to internet covers and trying to do exactly what you've already mentioned, just downloading, are they uploading their homework there and then downloading next stuff to be able to learn at home. So yeah, the inequities I think are also at the moment deepening and there is a lot to be done around that. Thank you so much everyone. Yeah. Can I add a little comment about equity as well and the COVID experience? I mean, the students in Nigeria didn't have laptops. They couldn't afford laptops. So the only device they had was their mobile phones. In comparison, my son is attending university in Scotland and studying the same engineering topic as these students in Nigeria. So I had a sort of direct comparison between mobile phone usage in Nigeria amongst the engineering students there and what my son was doing in the UK. And it was interesting that during the COVID pandemic when we were forced to stay home and study from home, the students here were not able to access the same mobile learning apps and as the ones in Nigeria, just purely because the university in Nigeria was set up to do that. Whereas in the UK, they were kind of playing catch up. They were not used to having to support students in that way. And they did gradually introduce measures that would compensate for the lack of access to mobile broadband which was still an issue with the students in Scotland. So they put kind of hotspots around campus where the students could come in and download anything that they needed. But we could learn a lot from the university in Nigeria really on how to use mobile. Yeah, very interesting observation Julianne. Thank you for that. We all had a handout. I think this would be the last comment or question before we move on to the next assumptions I'll be very quick. Is there a discussion about repackaging learning to make it available, given restrictions of connectivity and device and the consequences in terms of how it's packaged and how it's presented? Is there any thoughts from the group about changing the assessment because talking about sort of delivering content, managing interactions, but is the assessment still the same assessment or is any attempt to use things like mobile assessment, where people could rather submit text which is difficult on a phone, submit maybe medium, which is actually where mobile is easy to create media. So I'm not thoughts about how the assessment's changed as a result of online learning and the barriers. So from our perspective, in our courses, I can talk only about our courses and maybe two cases. One is when we use assessment in our courses, it's very much around assignments that are relevant to people's context, very often written ones, because we do a lot with the researchers in terms of research writing and with librarians around improving the quality of journals. So a lot of that is very practical and very much around submitting an evidence of what they have improved as a result of the learning on the course and then having facilitators to go through it. So it's a different situation, I think, to when we talk about the universities. Now we've had a project which we're about to finish, which is for universities, two of them are in Uganda and two of them are in Tanzania. We've been trying to redesign the courses with those universities. Just a selection, of course, just to introduce critical thinking problem, solving and gender-responsive pedagogy. And here the whole project was basically very much around CO face-to-face teaching and learning with just elements of online learning, but assessment and the ways of assessing students was a barrier. So because of the standard exams the students have to take. So what we've been trying to do and discuss with the teachers and the project needs was very much trying to do a much more formative assessment on the courses and much more an authentic assessment or the courses where we've been trying to teach academic staff on how to develop rubrics for peer review, peer assessment and things like that. So that the learning actually is being assessed as it's happening so that the teachers have an idea of how the students are progressing instead of all being done in the final exam which is still very much prescribed in those countries in terms of the generic standard. So it's a bit of a, yeah, it's a bit of a difficult thing in terms of online assessment. Thank you so much. We are 18 minutes past one. I think we will have time for just one more assumption and my least is one side fits all. So I'm gonna share my slides again and give floor to Veronica who is going to speak about this very much assumption. Okay. I'm so glad that the slide on that kind of running property. Good, thanks, Joanna for handing over. Yeah, another assumption is that the use of one size fits all approach to the development and implementation of our technology enhanced learning in the global south is problematic. As it does not take the context into account. In literature, you will find that this is in particular to where courses are developed and imposed from the north for participants in the global south, sometimes alongside a majority of northern audience what is not the case for our courses usually. There is a big risk when neglecting local factors such as the attitude towards or the capacity for online learning. Literature shows that uneven power dynamics, for example, between participants and facilitators from global south and north and the uneven data flow between the global regions can influence the success of learning initiatives negatively. However, we could observe opportunities when participants and facilitators can exchange learning and network beyond borders. That's for example, the case in our MOOCs. Our experience shows that for the development and delivery of learning initiatives with our audience from the global south, it is essential to consider their context and to take into account the diversity of learners. But you should also recognize the added value of learning with international colleagues. Next slide, please. Why do we think our learning initiatives are relatively successful in our MOOCs, which obviously cannot support individual learning preferences or just in a very limited way? We believe enough course development process contributes to the good acceptance and performance of our courses. Our co-designed decisions with our partners from the global south are informed by their insight in the context, then social norms, their values in their countries. Most of our courses are designed for low bandwidth. They use plain language and they provide a variety of support and learning assessment levels. When our partners want to reuse our courses in country and build capacity for technology enhanced learning, we tailor usually the co-design process to our partners and complement then this embedding process with training. In this way, they can make the right decisions considering the target audience and the mode of delivery. Next slide, please. We had a learning initiative in Sierra Leone within the Sphere Project Assuring Quality Higher Education in Sierra Leone Short Arcade and I feel that can serve as a good example. It shows how important it is taking the local context and culture into account when we are reusing any contents. Sierra Leone is a country with still insufficient and expensive internet access. Among students and lecturers, you will find a diverse level of digital skills. The implementation of the learning initiative was made more difficult by COVID-19. There were lockdowns in the middle of the project. The initial project idea was that our university partners in Sierra Leone would use an online critical thinking course that INAS had previously developed. Some of the senior lecturers had recognized that the course contents could contribute really to the improvement of students' employability skills. However, when we then did our initial scoping workshops, it was revealed that a course provided through the internet wouldn't be feasible due to the poor access conditions. And the initial plan of implementing a learning management system was then revised. We worked on alternative approaches such as providing the courses through Moodle boxes. You may know that are these portable Raspberry Pi computers with Moodle on it. However, this class approach was not feasible anymore during the university lockdowns. Therefore, we transferred the contents then to a so-called snippet version. We put together one page with learning activities and the lecturers distributed them through a WhatsApp group to the students who were studying from home at this time. And it was actually mostly the only possibility that lecturers could stay in contact with their students. But some of the learning activities were also reused in Zoom classes with some students who were able to use Zoom in Freetown. The learning initiative was supported by a local critical thinking task force of lecturers and they cascaded the training about such pedagogical approaches to other lecturers. Next slide, please. This quote here from one of the partners in Sierra Leone, I think it shows very well that we and our partners agree how important it is in the Global South that we co-develop our initiatives with local partners. This local partner in Sierra Leone said, the approach used in terms of adding critical thinking task force offices in various institutions has been the most crucial aspect in terms of achieving the goals. So going forward, when INAS is contacted or contracted for such a responsibility, try to have people to work with on the ground because these people can relate to their colleagues on their own continent. And they know probably the approach to use in terms of getting people to believe in whatsoever INAS is pushing. Yeah, I would suggest then that we again discuss this assumption of one size does not really fit well. What is your experience with that? We would like to hear your questions, if you have any, or your experience with that. I think we will have time for about one question or one comment. So yeah, is there anyone who would like to take the floor and comment or share their own experience and ask a question? Do we have anything in the chat? Just checking. Not really, if that's not the case. Then I think I'm gonna just wrap up with our conclusions. We haven't been able to, we've been only actually able to present three of our six assumptions, but I'm gonna share the slides anyway. Hopefully we'll be able to access them at the later stage and read about the findings from the other assumptions. So from current slide, what are the conclusions? Overall, INS data endorses the wider lenture and some of the aspects. It's clear from the evidence we have collected that issues with technical infrastructure are a problem for a sizeable minority, but perhaps this aspect will improve soon with new investments being made into infrastructures as a result of COVID pandemic. There exists a dichotomy of time pressures. We haven't been able to talk about it today, but there is definitely a dichotomy of time pressures. So neither synchronous or asynchronous learning comes without its challenges. However, on some aspects, INS data is at odds with the wider literature. We have comparatively high completion rates on our online courses and a very high level of positivity about interaction online, which includes appreciation of international interaction and collaboration. And yet other aspects, the picture we have seen is rather more nuanced than the one depicted in the literature. When it comes to access and outcomes by gender and country, the picture is complex and differs for specific groups. So there is a need to systematically collect data going forward and disaggregated by gender, country, region to understand more about those differences and how they change with time. Finally, the results of our study are going to be published as a handbook in early 2022. There are three parts to the handbook. We talk about our approach to capacity development in general. Then we present detailed findings from our study, including a set of case studies like presented today. And in the final part, we provide clear guidance to global capacity development organization like ours on how to use technology to support capacity development and the global self. If you are interested in the publication, you can follow us on Twitter or visit our website. And we'd like to thank you all for coming and listening to us today. It's been a pleasure and we really enjoyed all the conversations we've had. So thank you very much for participation and making it interactive. Thank you, Joanna. That was really interesting. It was lovely to see everyone getting so involved with the conversation. Thank you, Christine. If you're happy for me to know, I'll end the recording. Yeah.