For many students, online communication is a significant element of academic language support, and can include messaging via a learning management system and social media. This mode must still meet all the needs of the professional teacher-student relationship, and safe, ethical boundaries must be maintained in spite of using communication tools that are often more aligned with informal communications - including popular short cuts, such as emojis.Emojis - small digital images or icons used to express an idea or emotion in electronic communication - have significantly changed the way we communicate by adding nuance to a written exchange. Indeed, Emoji has become an optional, global language, "intended to illustrate, or in some cases replace altogether, the words we send each other digitally" (Sternbergh, 2014, p. 3). This phenomenon is widespread, with more than 90% of online users incorporating emojis in texts and emails (Kaye, Malone, & Wall, 2017), and teachers are no exception. Yet without vocal cues or body language, online communication can be a minefield of misunderstandings (Schwartz, 2015). How clear are students and tutors, really, about the quick-click-response communication they share online?This paper shares findings from current research into whether we are 'speaking emoji' in the same wordless tongue (Sternbergh, 2014) suggesting changes are needed in practice and pedagogy.

Creating opportunities for, and expectations of success as a benchmark for students to live up to, can be prophetic. This paper recounts the experience of a pilot study with international students who were accepted for entry into Diploma level programmes, despite a lower International English Language Testing System (IELTS) score than is usually accepted. Students participated in an accelerated and built-in Foundation study skills pathway before joining both domestic, and international direct-entry peers who had begun with a higher IELTS score. A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted to compare the transition, success and outcomes of students who completed the International Foundation Pathway (IFP) entry with direct entry and domestic students. Results from eight Engineering and four Quantity Surveying courses showed that in at least half, IFP students' average grade was equal or ahead of direct entry and/or domestic students. Teachers saw no discernible difference between the progress of the two groups of international students in their class, and students shared stories of confidence, satisfaction, and leadership. Yet, although every participant involved in this evaluation was enthusiastic about the benefits afforded by the IFP programmes, a number of barriers were identified alongside the proven enabling strategies. These findings have enabled the home institute to develop additional guidelines around transition, success and outcomes for international students, shared here in the hope that they will resonate beyond the boundaries of our own small, first pilot.