 The next person to address is Fiona and the question she had to grapple with was the one of what is the unit of change within our higher education institutions and what actions can be taken to improve team processes in designing or updating academic programmes. So, Fiona. Thank you, Jim. I suppose I became aware when I was preparing for today's session of the fact that I'm relatively new to a centralised role in teaching and learning. So I really feel that I haven't quite moved to the dark side, as Jim puts it, quite yet. And we've also been hearing a lot about top down approaches and bottom up approaches and I really feel that I suppose given my disciplinary background and my recent engagement and current and ongoing engagement within my discipline, I would like to think that I can see this, the whole discussion around technology enhanced learning and building digital capacity from both perspectives still. So I'm going to start with two observations, if I might. One of my disciplinary identities is that of a corpus linguist and this is one area in which I use technology myself for my teaching and also for my research. And as such, I suppose I've always been interested and continue to be interested in the discourses and I'm going to pick up a little bit on Mark's theme around talking about the language that we use to discuss digital capacity building and technology enhanced learning. So I'd like to start with two observations, then I'm going to talk a little bit about change and units of change and I'm going to finish with some, again, some concrete suggestions and dare I say it, some sort of a very loose framework for how we might approach this idea of change within our institutions. The first observation comes from my reading of the report on strategic and leadership perspectives which Jim produced on behalf of the forum and for those of you who have read it or even for those of you who don't, it's interesting to note that there are quite a few sort of salient or significant keywords that come through in the discourse that's used in that report and I think in the discourses that we generally use around technology enhanced learning and I started to list a few of them. I didn't quite go as far as running it through my software almost. The types of words that come up are conservatism, uncoordinated, bottom up, CPD, resources in terms of lack of resources, individual impact, lack of targets, lack of clarity, undeveloped interests, aspirations, lack of implementation, not fully defined, lack of systematic approaches, quality processes, problems of sustainability and problems around scalability. The way that that's framed to me appeared to be aspirational but quite negative actually and I think the importance of the discourse around this cannot be underestimated. Keywords in statistical terms give us lots of direct insights into the generic fingerprint of the discipline. So what are these, or sorry, of the discourse, what are these keywords telling us? Well, I suppose they're telling us lots of things. They're telling us that there is a real sense of goodwill. There's lots of aspiration about a journey and again Mark was talking about a journey. We didn't compare scripts in advance but I'm also going to use the journey metaphor in what I talk about. But there's also a sense that we need to make a sort of a move in relation to where we want to go and how we're going to get there. And there's a little bit of on surety around that in terms of the journey. The second observation that I'd like to talk about very briefly is in relation to the many interactions that I have with fellow teachers, with teachers on the ground, within my discipline, within other disciplines, at the bottom I suppose or on the ground. And then also the types of discourses that prevail when you work with other leaders within the institution and other people who have been I suppose charged potentially with leading change within the institutions and also at national level. So what do we talk about? Well, teachers on the ground, I spent two days just at the end of last week working with a group of teachers, language teachers, to put together a funding proposal based on technology enhanced learning. And what sorts of things do they say? Well, teachers get excited, they talk about and they get excited about projects within their own discipline, what they can achieve, how they can improve teaching and learning, and how they can help to support students in innovative ways. They also talk about a lack of direction, a lack of support and recognition from above within their institutions. There is a sense that they're doing this on top of everything else that they do. And sometimes that a price is paid for these, for all of this, in terms of time for research and potentially in terms of promotion within institutions. And that's a real fear among teacher groups. And I see lots of people nodding at me within the audience, thankfully. Other teachers question the pedagogic value of technology enhanced learning and some resist the use of ICT on the basis that there is a lack of evidence around its transformational potential. And this is backed up in research by Hanson and lots of other people. And that, I think, we cannot ignore. That is still very prevalent on the ground among lots of teachers. Moving to the other side, and my observations of leadership discussions, I think there's lots of talk around coulds and shoulds, as are a sort of way of expressing modality. And here's the linguist coming out in me again. Around aspirational statements, there's a very strong focus on student mix, increasing part-time students, flexible learners, distant learners, international students. There's lots of talk about what the system can and can't support. And I think we all become very aware of that very quickly when we start working at institutional level. There were discussions around governance structures to make decisions in a context of limited resources. And of course, there are lots of discussions around good teaching and learning with examples of what's happening on the ground within the disciplines, within specific teaching groups, within specific research groups, et cetera. So what do these two discourses tell us? Well, I think there is a good sense within the disciplines of where we want to go. But neither of the parties seem to be too sure about how we're going to get there. And there is, I think, a lack of a clear or shared understanding of who is responsible or who is responsible for what within that complex ecology, which I'm going to talk about in a moment. So moving to the question of change, I think in teaching and learning, the one thing that we will all be very aware of is that change happens either when we want it to or when we need it to. And that's really, really important in any discussion around technology-enhanced learning. And when I talk about needing to, I'm including situations here, for example, where policy mandates it or institutional strategy mandates it. The wants and the needs are often linked. And in a good scenario, that's probably the place that most teachers like to be. Let me give you two very quick examples before I move on to talk about a framework. And these examples come from my own teaching and learning. Many years ago, I think lots of teachers began to feel the need to manage the logistics of their teaching, their resources, their interactions with students, and technology provided a very good answer to that in terms of learning management systems or virtual learning environments, depending on how you want to call them. And that was a really quick and neat answer to a particular need that teachers were feeling, particularly with increased numbers of students at third level. Moving to the other side of wanting within teaching, again, I work with language teacher education students. And I had been looking for a number of years or trying to find ways or grappling with, trying to find efficient, effective ways of enhancing students' learning experiences, particularly around continuous professional development and reflective practices. And along came e-portfolios and blogs. And I thought, they're for me. That's what I want. That's what my students need. They will help me to do my job a little bit better. They will help my students to do what they want to do a little bit better. My research students a couple of years ago, some of my PhD students working in the area of corpus linguistics, needed to upskill, I suppose, for want of a better word, in the area of corpus linguistics. And along came a MOOC, as they say. And I recommend that my students follow that MOOC, and they follow it, and they learn the skills, and they learn the tools, and the approaches within corpus linguistics in a very comprehensive way. So these are, I suppose, the two sides of the same coin, and they're not unrelated the ones and the needs. And I think that sort of change, actually, is really, really important. And that's where it happens. Very briefly, I just want to mention a little bit of research that was conducted by Lynn Jump, funded by the Higher Education Academy in 2010, where she conducted a really useful, systematic review of the literature in relation to the experiences of university lecturers when enhancing their teaching through the use of digital technology. And I've just extracted four of her key findings, because I think they can tell us quite a lot about what's going on. There were definable reasons why lecturers used technology to increase student satisfaction by allowing them to take control of the learning environment and resources in open and flexible ways. And this includes flexibility around content, around materials, around pace, and location of learning. And a shift of power from the teacher to the learner, even allowing anonymity in lots of online interactions. Secondly, some resources and activities are more positively experienced by students than others. And this was always down to the skill and the professionalism of the teacher in the way in which they integrated technology into their teaching and learning. And I don't have to tell you that. I think everybody acknowledges that. And that's the starting point from which we all come. The research raises questions about the place of students as digital natives and also highlights evidence that students have a traditional view of the role of the teacher, even in online environments. What we know in linguistic circles is the IRF model of interaction, initiation, response, and feedback are a very high expectation of students. And the adherence to these patterns are strong indicators of student satisfaction of their online experiences, which is interesting. And many students highlight the benefit for the majority of students, but limitations for students, or many studies, sorry, highlight the benefits. But there are limitations for certain types of students and in some contexts also. So how can we bring all of that together, I suppose, thinking about the way that we talk about technology enhanced learning, the experiences of change on the ground and good teaching and learning and what the research is telling us. As Mark said, one of the things that we were asked to do is talk a little bit about next steps. And as an applied linguist and a teacher educator, I couldn't resist talking about a framework or an ecology for this. So I'd like to finish up by proposing something which I think has been alluded to by lots of the participants here today in the introductory talk and what Sarah has said, and also in the roadmap, which we've seen drafts of. So in terms of the levels or the components, I think it's a very complex ecology. I think we need to think about the key players for change. The National Forum report suggests that staff in learning support roles, academics as teachers, academics as leaders and students are all active participants. And I would agree and concur fully with that. I would also suggest that faculty deans and heads of department have a very key role to play in all of this. And I think that answers the question who's responsible. And of course it is that complex mix of the various players and their individual roles within that ecology. The unit for change, which really gets to the crux of the question that I was asked to address, I firmly believe that the unit of change is at departmental or disciplinary level within the disciplines, with the teachers, with the learners. This is where we contextualise our practice and where teaching innovation has been shown time and time again to be most effective. I've got a very good example of this at the moment. I'm currently in the final stages of co-editing the Routledge Handbook of Language, Learning and Technology, which consists of 40 contributions from right across the globe in the area of language, learning and technology. And the innovative work, the project-based work and the array of different interventions that are going on within that discipline in relation to technology-enhanced learning never ceased to astound me actually. It's absolutely magnificent what happens within the disciplines. And it's often through communities of practice and networks that reach far outside of institutional boundaries that this goes on. So I think that answers the question of where. Of course there are other levels and there are other players in all of this, but I think that is a pivotal agent for change. How do we go about doing this? Well I think there are two parts and we're not going to go into any great detail on this because I know John is going to talk quite a lot about CPD in a few moments. First of all I think we need to think quite seriously about the development of technology-enhanced learning strategies in localised settings. We will, in the next week or so, have a very nice national road map. We have European policy documents, we have European frameworks. Lots of us have institutional level strategies. We need to localise that right down to implementation stage to where the work can actually be implemented. And I think these strategies need to include details around targets, they need to have implementation plans, roles and responsibilities, statements about recognition and supports, funding and resources and they need to be fully integrated with teaching and learning strategies and other strategic priorities as articulated in various documents within the institution. And the second part of the answer to how I think, as well as having these strategies, these localised strategies with implementation plans, I think we need to think very carefully about CPD frameworks and how we support the teachers on the ground who are doing all of this very innovative work and how we begin to bring other teachers into that circle as well. So I think we need to have a CPD framework for telecapacity building. Reflective practices and CPD have often been criticised in the literature for being vague in terms of relevant focus, in terms of purpose and for not demonstrating impact on student learning. And I think these are the lessons we need to learn from the general education literature. I think CPD for change needs to be directly aligned with strategy and have clearly defined outcomes in terms of implementation in the teaching environment. There are lots of frameworks for this, lots of models for this. Mark has mentioned some other appropriate models. Some of you may be aware of Mishra and Kohler's T-PAC model, which includes technology, pedagogy and content knowledge in a very integrated way and that's one that I use in my own teaching and learning contexts with student teachers and with professionals and it works quite well. But there are many, there are many frameworks which could be drawn on to use this. So in terms of, I'm going to finish up by summarising really just to say immediate first steps, I think the identification of key roles of responsibilities across all relevant parts of the institution. Implementation responsibility needs to be at departmental and disciplinary level I think. The development of institutional strategy localised to departmental level and the parallel development of strategically aligned and appropriately accredited, where appropriate, CPD frameworks. Thank you.