Today I am at an annual University of Edinburgh eLearning Presentations Showcase event where eLearning presentations from other conferences and events are shared with the home crowd, colleagues working in and around eLearning
The programme for the day – including my own brief presentation (a revival of my Bright Club performance from this summer!) – can be seen below. I will be live blogging the talks but may not include previews if colleagues would prefer to keep these talks under wraps until they are officially complete and presented.
Sian Bayne – What’s wrong with ‘Technology Enhanced Learning’?
Submitted for Networked Learning Conference, April 2014 (abstract)
I want to talk about what’s wrong with technology enhanced learning. I’m not going to argue that technology in learning is a bad thing but about this phrase/concept and what this means.
I’m going to start by mapping the rise of TEL…. We moved from “learning technology” to “eLearning” and now to “TEL” being the dominant terms… These appear in research funding programmes (eg. FP7), in masters programmes…. A journal… Kirkwood and Price (2013) have a great paper about the literature around the term, and the absence of a clear meaning for it… But I want to look at those terms…
What’s wrong with “technology”. You get vague use of this word. You see it black boxed, out in a box and seen as subordinate to teaching practices…. We separate it from the social… We see teaching and learning as social processes, we see it as an instrumental. Something to further prior existing ideas. So it’s a very conservative process. TEL suggests tinkering rather than radical rethinking. It’s problematic Asa. Conservative to and problematic as an instrumental term. And you separate technology from society, separate from the other things that we do in education. It’s a problem with being critical about the role of technology in teaching and learning. Drawing on Hamilton and Friesen (2013/in press) here it’s about seeing education in socio technical spaces.
What’s wrong with “enhanced”. This is drawing on ideas of transhumanism… It’s an evolutionary idea… Technologically determinist and not a very helpful framework for us. Partly it’s about the relationshipm bwteen humanism, transhumanism and postmanism. Bostrom (2005) raises this question and the problematised idea of “humanist” as an approach for education and elsewhere… Bostrom and Sqndberg (2009) talks about “cognitive enhancement”, you see the resonance from this concept of amplification and enhancement to TEL. The enhancement idea can go further to the transhumanism idea of enhancement – genetics etc – and the remit for TEL.
I think it is more useful to see digital education as being an iterative relationship between the human and the non human – the university and the technology. TEL tends not go look beyond to decontextualise the idea of “enhancement”, not to consider broader ethical issues.
What’s wrong with “learning”? We’ll I want to draw on Biesta (2005) and the move to the “learnification” of education. That’s problematic because if you reduce education to learning to reduce the social and political landscape. It’s individualising move. It recruits education into the framework of an economic transaction. It becomes about education meeting a particular set of learner needs, a commodification model. So we need to talk about education more broadly. Learning never happens in a context. It’s goal orientated, political, conte stile. It’s difficult, not just about meeting needs. But TEL buys into this learnification idea, the commoditisation of education.
So, to conclude, as researchers and practitioners we need to move away from the notion of technology being in servitude to teaching and instead we need to think of them being bound up together.
Q) what you seem to be problematising is like in my role, the idea of information handling… Some interesting socio-material ways of using information… The nature of the information shapes our interaction… I think I see something analogous…
A) yeah, it’s about taking the social and the material aspects together…. We’ve tended to overvalue the social and undervalue the material
Q) in my world I think it’s the other way around. Materials overvalued relative to the social… But I see this happening in social media…
Q) is digital redundant if you were writing a strategy for the UK…. More beyond digital
A) perhaps, perhaps it’s so embedded… But “post digital” probably not write….
Comment) but to be post digital ignores inequalities of distribution, the terminology is important when considering gals in access or skills. To assume it is embedded overlooks those without access or skills….
Maggie Carson – Fostering social presence by supporting students in an asynchronous online environment: can Jelly Babies help?
From the HEA’s International Enhancement Theme Conference: Enhancement and Innovation, June 2013. (abstract)
I am a lecturer in nursing studies. I am a novice to teaching online so I was asked to turn a face to face course online and this presentation is about this process. I teach a leadership course to masters level students. I had used the idea of a “jelly baby tree” as an icebreaker, to ask students – qualified nurses – to indicate how they saw themselves at this point in the course. To step into Sian’s trap here, I saw myself as a facilitator here…. This tool helped us see, each week, how the students were doing, how they were feeling about the course and their progression.
I was asked to create an online version of this course. This coincided with a secondment to the institute of academic development… So as I started to think this through I started to wonder if the jelly babies could follow me online… We adapted the image, we made it more visually appealing for online, we coloured it… We numbered the jelly babies. Again asked students to pick one and tell us about it.
In person everyone contributed, they articulated something about themselves, they’d used their voice… So when we got to discussions they had crossed that line they’re all spoken early on. So I tried to do the same each week with our asynchronous online course. I had a discussion board just for the jelly baby tree. Everyone needed to take part but this was open and ungraded…
In terms of the cohort we had 14 students, we have 79% female students! around half and half home and international students (the latter from a wide range of areas). The feedback looked good. The jelly babies humanised the course, made the course different from other leadership courses…
So now I want to focus on why an online community matters… Student feedback really valued this. I found that I was doing course design for this online courses was instinctively thinking about ideas, then checking the literature. Maybe the wrong way round. However isolation can be a real factor in online learning. Positive social presence also contribute to student satisfaction. Retention and satisfaction retention rates improve where there is a sense of online community. For us the jelly baby tree served that social function… Most students posted and responded to others’ posts. They would support each other…. They engaged consistently across the ten weeks of the course, never a dropping off of engagement… One reason was, I think, because they felt secure, safe and supported by each other and the course leaders through the medium of the jelly baby tree…
All 14 students who started the course, finished the course. They all engaged with the jelly baby tree. They all got involved in the discussions and activities each week. What came out of the evaluation was supported by the literature. Fabre and garrison (1998) on social presence as being essential for establishing a critical community. Cognitive presence. And also manifestos for online teaching. The jelly baby factor was also commented on here when feeding back on other courses.
Q) I get the idea that interactions were supportive and softer side… Did you look at more practical comments and support.
A) yes, one of my separate discussion threads I titled “technical help”. I had 6 posts in total there… ,a inky because they used the jelly baby tree discussion space. There was practical advice there. I guess potentially they used it like a coffee room. But in BOS survey I out out to that cohort I asked about the same course with a different space. They liked the jelly baby tree. Many were honest that they were baffled by the idea at the start. But by the end of the week they were missing the jelly babies…
Q) I’m just interested into unpicking this more… Is part of the value that having made social contact you have an easy way to stroll in Nader ask questions…
A) absolutely, part of my PTAS project is to investigate that…
Q) any cultural issue around jelly babies
A) a little, unfamiliar to some students… I need a new term probably… But I think in a diverse cultural group no one was offended by the jelly babies. It’s quite safe and neutral… Someone asked me about the colours of the jelly babies and where they are on the tree… I really didn’t. Maybe I’d have done it differently if I had…
Comment) We are using that now in our course though!
Comment) a paediatrics course has a weekly case review… Students started bringing their own in and that started to build compassionate professional support community, almost mentoring, in that community too, as with jelly babies.
Gill Aitken – Staff experience of online education?
From the AMEE Conference in Prague, in August 2013. (abstract)
This presentation is adapted from an electronic poster… It’s very much some introductory discussions of ongoing work… I’d like all your options as staff involved in online education.
One programme is an online taught PG programme. 8 hours per week study time suggested most weeks. Uses Adobe connect for weekly synchronous tutorials. Most of our students are medics, about 70% are doctors. Mostly nurses, pharmacists, dentists, and our first vet this year. Again about 50/50 uk and international students. Gender about equally split as well. we have a weekly online lecture, them a weekly synchronous online tutorials. There is something very nice about these tutorials. We had 16 graduate last week and we met 14 of them in person, a most lovely but odd experience!
So I want to talk about staff experience about teaching online… I didn’t have lots of experience and wanted to see how others we’re feeling. I interviewed about 10 people. Some ran whole courses, some just did one off sessions, but all had been part of edlab liveries the programme, of being part of tutorials.
So my initial findings… The good: generally people liked it. One very experienced colleague found the online teaching “a lot more satisfying and cognitively challenging”. A definite sense of real difference between the face to face and online teaching.
My let theory here is that there is a control issue. Perhaps the more face to face experience you have, the more control you are used to having… If the technology needs wrangling, that’s not a space you control. Comment: online is quite different. Comment: replicating face to face practice can be really problematic. Comment: perhaps it’s about not having people in front of you… I had great trouble recording lectures for no students… Me: can be an issue of explicit cues/attention etc… Gill: because of video here you do have those social cues…
Q) you are contrasting face to face with online is this wholly online or blended? Teaching staff on campus increasingly used to use some mediating technologies…
Gill: I think there was a concern about people being rolled out into the course, given us pause about how we site that work…
In terms of challenging issues one of our participants noted “you do need to have quite a lot of information in reserve”.
There is an aspect of multitasking, the video, the text discussion boxes, the private messages, sometimes overwhelming or expectations…
For most people the technology let down the teaching we wanted it do. Variable internet connection was often a distraction to participation.
So my conclusions…. The technology requires further development to meet the challenge be’s required of it. Staff required different skills to teach online affecting their training needs. Online teaching does not take less time than face to face.
Q) do you have courses that staff can take, to feel like a student?
A) the literature. Does back that up. One to one tuition has been the approach here…
Comment) and there is the IAD online tutoring course here.
Comment) one issue for me can be the relative chaos… If you have chat, images, or documents, or other things happening in second life… That’s extra stuff… You have this threading of topics in chat… Very different to face to face environments where parallel discussion is seen as rude. But in text chat you have to allow that… It’s stressful at first as a tutor… And you have to pick things up later on… Or moments of unfortunate timing… Conventions help but students find that hard too.
Comment) that’s why moderators can really help for keeping track. Having a moderator helps and reassures…
Comment) synchronous sessions may be challenging but they can be much more exhilarating… Can really drive forward the conversation… Asynchronous can be quite boring…
Gill: I do love our tutorials, they work well, but I want to get to the bottom of that warmth and engagement!
Ross Galloway – Using technology to facilitate a flipped classroom approach.
Presentation originally given at the Learning and Teaching Open Forum, University of St Andrews, April 2013 (abstract)
I am a physicist but my research is in physics education, I’m also the course organiser for our first year courses. I am uniquely lucky in having a huge playground here.. This may be a little instrumental for your tastes hopefully you’ll find this interesting…
So, you should all be familiar with Blooms taxonomy. In susceptible to face course we get the lower levels – remembering, maybe understanding…. Not much higher up the Pyramid. There is a concept of the inverted or flipped classroom… The idea is to get information transmitted first, so wee can get things moved up the pyramid… We’ve tried this for the last three years so I’ll be reflecting on what we do and how this works…
So to show the most famous graph in physics education (Hakes 1998), this is about measuring learning based on knowledge of concepts. Often discussing and processing does better for understanding, for knowledge. That’s the general idea.
So students come I’m and they get a personal reading, an online reading quiz via learn (multiple choice). And then a free response question “what I still don’t understand is”. In that week we have peer instruction lectures, then the following week we have workshops. W use the teaching studios in Appleton Tower. Workshops are for extended problems, group work with academic staff. And each week we have a pen on paper low tech hand in assignment… It repeats on a three weekly cycle…
So the reading quiz so you can get a good idea of what is understood. Free text lets you know what to focus on. When you say “I covered this in the course” you mean you said it once in class. We’ll have a biscuit! But the free text, the focus, let’s you really cover stuff. Add I like to make a word cloud of the free text and show the students… They don’t know that they are all struggling with the same things but this can really help focus our time and make them feel assured.
We ask students to do about three hours of study for every hour in class. Between the traditional and inverted models we see many more students actually studying in their own time when we anonymously survey them.
In our classes we use clickers a lot… You can use EVAF and it gathers responses to questions… It draws together what happened, again you can see how the class are understanding things. Students can view this too… Including their own answer.
The idea of peer instruction, what’s that all about… The cycle is… I pose the question. Ask them to think about it themselves. I ask them to vote, but only I see the response. If most people are right you can move on. If most people get it wrong I ask people to discuss this between themselves. And then they do. Then as discussion quietness, you poll again, and hopefully you get many more correct votes. Mostly that’s the pattern. Then as an instructor you confirm and summarise. That’s one example…
Looking at some older data…. You can see percentage moving from incorrect to correct answers. About .5 gain. Face to face didactic lectures typically 0.1 best of 0.2. So it works pretty well.
We have a Newtonian mechanics diagnostic instrument – taken worldwide – called the force concept in entropy diagnostic test results. We run this at the beginning of the year, very broad distribution. After the course we see a much better performance.
Picture of a thirteenth century lecture… Remarkably similar to current face to face practice… I’d like us to do something different… Something more constructivist. Students working together… Constructing knowledge on top of what’s already known… In an image of workmen building teaching staff at the scarfolding…
Q) do the students know where you’ve come from and where you’ve gone. Do the students realise…
A) students might be upset with that sort of wording. But I get to set the norms for first year physics. They take to this because this is their first course. E have a week of lectures at the start where we don’t have to convey content. We explain what we do and why we do. I show them data, I show them that it’s a better way to do things. Students are mature about this. The responsibility sits with them, take that on. A few but very few are vocally opposed. Most get on board rapidly. But I take care to justify this approach…
Q) have you moved to open book exams?
A) no, open note exam. Notes they have made themselves. Much better model for physics. Moves from recall to actually doing science. Why not textbooks? We’ll its a package. We don’t want that. Want students to create only learning resources. For students who’ve done that well those are a safety blanket. Some never open them. Some flick frantically… I can’t tell you the outcomes in advance…
Q) is this an approach applicable specifically to your type of content…
A) this is closer to modes of discourses of arts etc. than anything else. There is much of this in areas without objective right answers… Three main authors may have different positions… But you don’t have to ask which is right… It’s about getting students to think, no matter what the field…
Q) how do we get away from students thinking “I’ve paid a lot of money” and wanting to see someone in front of them?
A) I’ve been asked this. But this is so much harder. You have to know so much ahead of these lectures. You have to have expertise. It can go off piste in weird sorts of ways… You throw away ideas of timing! I’ve been 50 minutes behind schedule… I had a class who saw what I thought was an easy concept, as hugely impenetrable. This is certainly value for money…
Q) what about students who have difficulty learning from text on their own…
A) interesting issue. I have some students who prefer to have things said to them. But old style lectures are so mechanistic… Display and writing down… I don’t think there’s any meaningful learning there. But there are other resources – videos, staff members. I don’t think traditional lectures solve the problem, they largely do that anyway. But some students do say they have trouble…
Comment) when there are special requirements from students the most common request is sight of readings and coverage in advance, which this approach addresses better than those unhappy with handing out lecture notes in advance… If anything it’s more egalitarian. Better opportunities for students with particular requirements.
Jo-Anne Murray – Participants’ Perceptions of a Massive Open Online Course.
From the AMEE Conference in Prague, in August 2013. (abstract).
I going to speak about something I’ve been involved with recently. We’ve developed a Massive open online Curse in the school of veterinary science. So the MOOC, as the name suggests is massive. We had about 20k students…. Some courses at UoE had a 100k registered. And in the virtual learning environment they appear as week by week blocks. We used coursers, the university has also signed up to future learn but for now we are sticking with coursera.
You can select the course length and so these vary. There is little tutor intervention, it’s about resources, discussions, student participation. No prerequisites, super flexible, available online no matter where students are based. It can be missed some weeks, caught up with again later… So we’ve found that for some students considering university, this lets them explore. You sign up, but you don’t have to finish the course.
The course was on equine nutrition and we had over 24k registrations. So this works as prerecord end lectures. Some formative assessments, some quizzes. Some drag and drop, some multiple choice. There was a forum but little one to one instruction. We had a board on technical feedback, on assignments, and week by week discussions. We have three teaching assistants monitoring these and looking for key issues and concerns. And at the end of each week we did a Google hangout, a chat between teaching staff. You have choices with assessments but this course leant itself we’ll to multiple choice questions. We did weekly quizzes and an end of course quiz. This time we’ll just do the weekly quizzes. Those that did take assessments did them we’ll. we had 98k quiz submissions over the course of the 6 week course.
30% actually completed the course. We asked them if they had taken a MOOC before… And asked some questions about them… We had over 4000 responses from our 19k active students. Most spend 2-3 hours per week (what we asked for) but interestingly the majority of respondents went through to week 5. Most people watched weekly videos . When asked about discussions not everyone took part every week – perhaps because overwhelming for the,. Quite a lot engaged with revision quizzes, fewer with assessed quizzes. I asked about learning materials… They liked the talking head lectures, seeing someon talking to them (not just slides) and they seemed to enjoy quizzes too… The course content was rated well but interactions with others were not rated so highly. W asked if ine to one interaction had been expected by our students…. We didn’t actually give information at the start about what to expect… We went back to do that in used two, so we wondered what they expected. They didn’t actually expect that but they seemed to want that – posting and reporting questions…. But overall they seemed to feel the course either exceeded or met expectations…
So in terms of interactivity the students did seem to want interaction with the tutor. Round ups help but a lot of reading and time each week to do that…. It is a different experience to other online courses. Hard not to respond or support every student… But that’s not realistic…. And I hadn’t appreciated… There is no one type of students, no prerequisites. In terms of their interactions… Rally varied compared to what we expect of our students. So this time we will set out clear expectations about interacting with each other. Sometimes people would jump in, some would not be constructive in their criticisms, etc. we need to give them guidelines up front. But it was good fun and a very different experience. And much learned from this to take to credit bearing courses…
In conclusion the participants raged course highly. Further work to look at interactions. Run again in 2014. And we have new courses in edge elopement. That will be really exciting too!
Q) your course had higher retention than other edinburgh MOOCs, why do you think that was?
A) I think it was because it was such a specific subject area, already very interested and keen audience wanting to complete it.
Q) to follow up on students liking talking heads… Did they get a mix?
A) no. But I asked them whether they would have preferred the slides. I was working from slides which I shared as PDFs . I asked if they would have preferred that, the majority said no… But weren’t given the other approach, based on what they thought it would be like….
Q) one question asked about MOOCs: why do these?
A) one of the things we were looking to do. We have an equine science masters and we wanted to raise awareness especially in America. We were struggling to do that… Coursera is North American based company and I thought that would help raise awareness. This is a different course to the msc but we can indirectly market – saying who I am, about the programme. Also wide remind participation aspects here, and potentially improving welfare of horses. And there were unexpected research and masters projects opportunities that happened…
Q) is three recruitment from MOOC to MSc?
A) yes, we’ve got nine students who came to the programme as a direct result of the MOOC. A real benefit as perhaps we’d saturated the Uk market.
Nicola Osborne – Social media ettiquexpert
Not noted here for obvious reasons… I revived my Bright Club: Scotland’s Fringe stand up set for one afternoon only! Nicola draws upon her research for her 2012 MSc in Digital Education dissertation: “Continuing Professional Development in Collaborative Social Media Spaces” (https://sites.google.com/site/cpdaandsocialmedia/)
Susan Rhind – Peer Generation of Multiple Choice Questions: Student Engagement and Experiences.
From the AMEE Conference in Prague, in August 2013. (abstract)
I was looking at Peerwise with our students. They we’re given short presentation on best practice for writing MCQs. Students liked this at first… But I was looking at how participation varied by which point their participation took place. In year one a mark was awarded but no MCQ in degree exam. Year 3 ,works were awarded and MCQs were in the exam course. And in a later year they actually requested that MCQs be brought in because they had enjoyed it. There seemed to be a weak positive correlation between MCQs and exam performance. Not in the course where they requested it though.
When we looked at third year versus first year cohorts, and whether it mattered when staff oversaw the process… Younger students we’re concerned but year three students not as bothered, confident in ability of peer group to manage MCQs.
The students altruistically asked for MCQs to be helpful to later students with high stakes MCQS exams… So in doing that we got third year students to create transition questions for themselves and for year two Incomers. And we had fourth years writing questions for year four students and final year students . Some students found those transitional questions for second years useful, some not bothered either way. In terms of answering questions… Final year students clearly used MCQs in revision, particularly on the last day. We asked students how they found this… One student commented that Peerwise helped them revise when too exhausted after labs. Some felt questions misleading and sometimes poorly written… No plans to police these despite some student feedback that they’d want questions overseen.
The way we’ve gone on to use this… Is to engage students in how we set standards in assessment. We have some workshops to get students to understand pass mark on MCQ exam, on how to assess MCQs. And students are actually good at setting standards, particularly when they know the material better.
But in terms of qualitative results… Students felt that students have a view on the course that teachers and examiners may not. Although students understood where the pass mark is… They felt uncomfortable taking exams where they didn’t know the pass ark. Age it’s led into some assessment literacy work… And interesting to get students to try examiners shoes. There was certainly a theme of students being involved in standards setting… But they are nervous about floating pass marks. The assessment literacyissue is for students and staff both, looking further at that…
Q) why do you think students get wound up in policing? Is it that it looks like a test?
A) they are really competitive our students. Perhaps also a time thing… Once used to being responsibility for own learning… Starts to help them understand their own responsibility in their learning process.
Q) has that changed over time?
A) always competitive… But stress etc. seems to be getting worse… But hard to see in the short time we’ve used Peerwise. T earlier we make them feel like a community of learners, that will help.
Q) does tool let you up vote better answer…?
A) you can rate and comment on questions. Generally errors are picked up. Rating isn’t just about quality of questions… I always give out a few selection boxes for best questions as rated by peers.
Q) you said of course they participate because they get 2%… Not a lot…
A) it’s the value we feel comfortable with. They are so competitive they really want those marking. We felt more marks would mean more freeloading – copying and pasting.
Comment) but this is fundamentally about learning vet medicine. We’ve made a rod for our own backs here… They work for the mark…
A) I disagree to an extent actually…
Comment) is the fact that this is fun important here… It’s work but it’s fun to do…
Q) what value did question creators get out of treating them.
A) many students did bare minimum, most was 18 questions. But students admitted writing MCQs was hard. Re qualitative stuff that we could do there…
Q) do vets do the concept of you watch one, you do one, you teach one….?
A) we do. It does fit with this idea… When you teach something you have to learn it really well.
Margaret MacDougall – Integrating statistical e-learning and clinical learning within programmes for health professionalls through feedback and collaboration.
From the Annual Meeting for Teachers of Medical Statistics, University of Oxford, September 2013. (abstract)
I am a statistician, at least that’s my hat here. My background is mathematics but my interest is in educational research.
Statistics is not always flavour of the month for students. So when I think about designing resource for medical students I have to think quite differently, to get a sense of their motivation. We have to integrate statistical learning in clinical learning, not as an add on or parallel course. That’s where I’m coming from.
So the actual work is grounded in two projects. The old MAths, stats and OR network (2007-8) and three 1 year funded from the principals eLearning fund. The key outputs from these projects have been three sequentially arranged collections of Computer Assisted Learning Objects (CALs) for use in preparation for future student learning and assessment.
So the CALs looks at risk. They cover a wide range of concepts involving risk estimation. Designed to empower learners to make the right choices from the range of available risk notions in medicine. That includes examples of misuse as well as correct use.
So what sort of thing are here? Comic strips between confused students. Also confidence intervals… Standard deviation etc. it’s an interactive conceptual side…. The comic strips are student actors… And we have integrated optional online story books withnCAL materials accessed by all students. The story book lets you get an overview – particularly useful for dyslexic students but others too. And for those who want to delve deeper that’s available too… It won’t be many of them but it’s helpful for them to be able to explore technical details if needed. And there is a huge range of materials that can be linked to and engage with. Including applied, not just conceptual notions of risks.
And this brings me on to the UoE Principals Teaching Award Scheme (PTAS) Scheme. This work is about identifying needs for statistical resources and information that enables us to step in at points of need for the students.
The CAL interfaces includes lots of pages… But that’s off putting… So we have broken up the material into modules… So that someone can focus on topic as a separate entity, just work through one section at a time. But they are sequentially presented to. And we are asking students to give feedback and talk about how modules fit into different years… There is a notion of sequential learning but also a sense of having places to stop at the end of a day/a study period.
And I welcome colleagues from other courses who might benefit from the CALS, I’d love these to be collaboratively developed too.
Q) something coming up in different contexts is this idea of personal learning. That you can go through materials like this based on what you know or feel comfortable about… I wondered if you had any thoughts on that sort of quite usable approach etc. and the idea of measuring, of identifying a need to work through again.
A) firstly you remind me of a course I hope to be part of, a masters in clinical trials. There students come in from different learning backgrounds and I hope we can build a foundation course to establish what they do and did not know, and perhaps optionally offer the CALS to help manage gals etc. but the second part of the answer… I’m aware that medics are so achievement orientated with set requirements… It’s harder to get that personal learning into that. And not all pick statistics courses. I want to weave statistics into other courses, huge issue (as with students) of them doing work if not assessed.
Comment) I think statistics need to be delivered in a just-in-time kind of way, that’s how they need it. That integration and embedding really matters.
Marshall: thank you to all of our presenters for a really diverse range of speakers!