Jan 282016
 

These notes were taken live at the first Learning Teaching and Web Services and eLearning@ed joint Monthly Meet Up, which took place at Appleton Tower on 28th January 2016. The definitive version can be found on the elearning@ed wiki, where you’ll also find related resources. As these were live notes the normal caveats apply and comments, corrections, etc. are very much welcomed.

Jo Spiller – Introductions

Welcome to our first Monthly Showcase and Networking session, which will be around five key areas here.

A few things coming up that may be of interest. We have the soft launch of MediaHopper as of 21st Jan. We also have the launched of Open.Ed showcasing OER best practice on 4th February. And we also have OER Workshops on 3rd March in Central area, 4th May in Kings Buildings.

Innovative Learning Week runs 15th-19th February with loads of events including a Wikipedia Editathon, Photogrammatry on 16th Feb, and Plotting the Campus on 17th Feb. We also have Learning Technology Fairs – School of Geosciences (15th Feb); ECA on 22nd March.

Marketing ODL

Dissertations at a Distance & eLearning@ed

Prof Jonathan Rees – Using video in the clinical medical curriculum. What are we learning?

I’m going to talk to you about what the challenges are in the medical school. In clinical medicine we work on a “Carousel” model. There are 18 carousels, each lasting 2 weeks, over 40 weeks each year. 15 students per carousel. 14 hours of tutorial each week, and 30 hours of clinical observation. Each student engage with around 8-10  staff. You have 3 hours of lectures, spaced up to 3 months away from the carousel. So, that’s not a system you’d necessarily design so there are problems to solve…

And we’ve made a video here to show you how we addressing some of those challenges. This video addresses key concepts and introductions to material they will see in the course. So, essentially we’ve been trying to use videos to overcome some of these challenges. Many of our students don’t know who some of our staff are here – which means that a challenge for our modules is to put a face to the name, to make this course personal, to make those connections to the people in charge of their teaching.

People did use video when I was a student… But they work very well for procedures. We want to put some things online partly as students are based throughout the region, and that means it’s available close to when they need it. In some ways our course structure is not linear. Some of our material in year 4, is the just in time learning for year 5. One of the interesting things about videos is you get to see what other people are doing and thinking!

Q1: How do students respond to them?

A1: they look at them, we get told if they do’t work. They say that they like them and request them.

Q2: Now that staff are more recognisable does that change anything?

A2: We only started doing this in September properly, but too early to say.

Q3: You did something interesting on quality of iPhone recording and mic.

A3: One of the talking head ideas was to get students to know who the module leaders are, to make those connections… If you have to cross town to do things it can be a nightmare… The phone is good enough to create short content, timely content when needed. Even cheap mics in a good room are amazing.

Q4: Do you have a limit on videos to keep them short or is it any length?

A4: Some are 2 and a half minutes, which works great. We try to keep them under 5 mins or around 5 mins.

Q5: Are they scripted?

A5: No. The talking head ones we are still learning how to do that… No scripting but sometimes two or three takes to get the right version.

Q6: Editing can take the time, how have you managed this?

A6: In theory there will be a system in the college. Right now we can edit, it’s not great. But generally we try to do everything in one take… With maybe a stop and restart. But we try to avoid too much editing.

Comment: I do a few online sound clips with a PowerPoint… I find I have to do it twice… Run once with timer, then second go I capture it.

A6: I’m still learning… The more we do it, the better we’ll get at it… We’ll get used to doing it.

Imogen Scott – Creating high-qualiy media for teaching (advice from MOOCland)

I’m talking here about video for a much wider audience. You would’t always invest this much time and work for a video for a small group etc. I work in the Media Production Team, with my colleagues Lucy, Tim, Nichol, Kara, Andy and me. We create media for MOOCs and I’m going to draw on a couple of examples here, particularly from our Andy Warhol MOOC…

Imogen is playing a video from our Warhol MOOC.

So in that clip we had some locations – an art studio (not Warhol’s!), and he also found some Warhol images that we could use online. Now that is a very tricky thing to do… It was only possible because of our lecturer, Glyn’s involvement in a large scale research collaboration, and that brought it’s own challenges.

The Warhol course was 5 weeks long with a lot of video content each week. We had multiple stakeholders: Tate, Artist Rooms, Arts Council, National Galleries of Scotland. And they needed to negotiate rights etc.

By contrast we also made the Nudgeit: Understanding Obesity course, a 5 week course, 3 hours per week learner effort, 35 mins per week video content. This was all content created by the team. We used teaching spaces, we used the anatomy museum, and they created their own resources for the course – interpretations of data, visuals, etc. And they documented that process for the course.

We also did Mental Health: A Global Priority. This was done mainly with audio materials as this was designed to be used in the developing world and audio means much smaller downloads. And it also enabled anonymity for some participants, particularly important given some of the interviewees discussing mental health. (We are now hearing audio from the course.)

This course was quicker to source – no locations needed, minimal visual content. But it took a long time as the challenge was both the location and time zones of participants and partners, as well as the less reliable internet connections in some locations. We had plenty of time but only just got this completed when we needed to.

So, if you are thinking of creating video or audio. When you are putting together ideas we strongly advise creating a video script. That helps you finalise the words, but also to think about the visuals (which may be a talking head, but may be many other things). Think about what you want to say, look at other videos to think about visual aspects. Source images from creative commons, take your own images… And sometimes if you have an abstract concept to describe think about how you might do that…

You also want to think about what you want to call your video and how long it would be – we try to keep videos under 6 minutes. For Philosophy and the Sciences we filmed in a really lovely library… That looked good and let us do separate takes and do cutaways as part of the visuals.

If you do grab creative commons images do keep track of your sources. You can use our spreadsheet if you want to – capture source, source link, etc. And that means you can license your own work openly if you want to. You can’t always do that but when you do you want to provide a license, evidence any research used, evidence any source materials used.

For scheduling a production you need to think about equipment, location, contributors, script, images or other source material, licenses for these, and time to create transcripts.

Q1: Is there a university transcription service?

A1: We outsource at present. We think that there may be some opportunity to do this in house.

Comment: If there is a need here then it would be really useful to gather evidence of that need.

Ross: There is also some discussion from the Web Publishers Clinic around this too which I’ll share.

Comment: And Informatics has masters students working on automated transcriptions.

Imogen: The timescales here tends to be 6-8 months – including emails and preparation etc. More collaborators can mean that it takes longer. For about half an hour of video content you need to allow 1-2 days to record that, and then about a week or more for editing. Editing is where a lot of the creativity happens.

We have a webpage that lists our DIY media kit for hire. We also have our attributions spreadsheet template, and Creative Commons attribution guidance.

Q2: Have you found that you are required to put any of the people you record through media training? Is that something you advise?

A2: We tend not to advise that. It’s geared towards giving an interview on the news. For course materials it’s a different style – and being comfortable with the material and the setting. In some ways the MOOC production timeline is getting used to creating video. Every team we get is new to this… You try it and you learn it…

Q2: One thing from the previous speaker is that people seemed very natural…

Comment: But that’s a second or third take thing… The first take isn’t likely to have been as natural.

Imogen: And you get used to that experience anyway, you become more natural on camera.

We are now watching the Edinburgh MOOCs showreel… 

Prof Clive Greated – Use of video and sound in fluid mechanics and acoustics teaching

I have been teaching fluid mechanics at Edinburgh since the 1970s but back a while ago I began getting involved in teaching acoustics and becoming interested in sound. And one of the things that I created for this course were a series of podcasts of different instruments and although I stopped teaching the acoustics course ages ago I happened to mention that I had these. Now maybe 5 years back I was asked to take over a third year fluid mechanics students, and I wanted to use that idea of podcasts, or something similar, to bring out the practical aspects of engineering.

So my idea was to go into the field and look at real engineering sites, so students had a feel for the kind of realities of a real system. A large section of my course is on turbines, used in hydrostations etc. It’s quite difficult to visualise those for the students… But I wanted to encourage students to go take a look at real systems as there are 100s in Scotland. (We are now watching a video on hydroelectric systems). The videos are about 3 minutes long. I’ve made 50-60 of these. Some are a bit longer – one on the physics and astronomy department are 30 minutes long.

So, I’ve taken the various topics and made videos around that… One of the topics is waves and wave power, and Scotland had the first wave turbines attached to the grid, so again just giving students a view of what that looks like in practice. (Watching a wave turbine video now, showing a decommissioned turbine to explain the working).

Again, I have another clip and then I’ll share some reflections on using these. Now, another topic is high speed flows and super sonic flight. We have the museum of flight just up the road so I made just a short clip about that (now watching this, which discusses the power and inefficiency of Concorde).

So for all of these I’ve tried to get real examples for students. And I just want to talk briefly on practicalities. You’ll see that in some of those videos I’m in the video… Sound recording is absolutely crucial – you have to monitor that really carefully. So you need a camera with proper sound facilities, XSLR inputs etc. And in most of these videos you have voice over… A very useful facility in the University is an anechoic chamber. You really need that sort of soundproofed space to do audio for video recordings. There is a small semi-anechoic space in Informatics. The high quality space is also available to use in Kings Buildings – you need to call to book it but that can be done.

In terms of audio, many of our students listen to recordings through iPads/iPhone and that’s an opportunity to record in binaural sound (now watching a video with binaural sound of a wave tank). In fact the first recording I made of the wave tank – recorded in slow motion and with binaural audio from the sea – had over 750k hits on YouTube.

I have found a real interest from students in this which I’m really pleased about. It is really good to incorporate the sound and the video. I’m an actually retired, but still teaching (full time!) so probably have more time than most.

Q1: I hope you’ve been nominated for teaching awards?

A1: I have been nominated every year, and students always cite that material as being helpful.

Q2: How have the rest of the faculty responded?

A2: I haven’t had a huge response. I have Video PremierPro editing on my machine, but I basically do this all myself.

Q3: Did you have a challenge getting people to be natural on camera?

A3: I have to confess my wife is my sound recordist – I drag her around Scotland.

Q4: How do you get to film on location – do you just call people up?

A4: Yes. My next film is in Orkney with Scot Renewables and that’s going to be the largest tidal generator in the world. We’ve already been to Harland and Wolf in Belfast, where it is being constructed so there’ll be that full lifecycle. People are keen to be in videos. You have to ask people, but they are generally happy to take part. It may be that for some commercial stuff there might be concern, but generally this is fine. People are quite up for that.

Q5: Are these openly on YouTube?

A5: I think they will be on the Open.ed website. And will be available there. So I have changed all the licenses ready.

Hands On MediaHopper Session – Stephen Donnelly and Mark Jennings

We are going to quickly show you how how to login to MediaHopper and download the CapturEd software. (Demo taking place).

 

 

 January 28, 2016  Posted by at 3:10 pm LiveBlogs Tagged with:  No Responses »
Jan 282016
 

Today I am at the eLearning@ed event “Using Pebblepad/Atlas for managing the student dissertation life-cycle“.

As usual these notes are being taken live so all comments, corrections, etc. are welcome. Update: In addition to these notes, slides from this session are now available here.

Dissertation Marking and Feedback using ATLAS – Graeme Ferris and Paul Caban

Paul: I’m going to start with a brief history of dissertation management in the Business School. Up until 2002 we were using a paper-based system (version 0). That was great but not scalable. We were expanding so we needed something new.

For version 1 the school had it’s first dedicated developer who built us a system using ColdFusion and SQL. That managed the process but it wasn’t great. ColdFusion is also not a tool particularly well loved in the University. So for version 2 we had started working on php and Postgres… But that project became problematic in lots of ways and didn’t result in a working version that achieved what we needed it to do.

Version 3 was built within the school and was based on php and Postgres, it was built swiftly but needs were changing, the requirements were diverse, and it was becoming unmanagable.

So the dissertation process is loosely:

  1. Sign up – supervisor choice and allocation. People state their preference, allocations are made.
  2. Supervision and submission. Ethics etc. processes are gone through.
  3. Marking. Currently on paper. Agreement and audit trail between markers. Then marks and feedback goes to the students.
  4. Reporting and Quality Assurance processes.

However… The developer that had built this system decided to move to a new role. At the same time we saw this system as in need for reconsideration, high on our risk register, and we had new needs to accommodate. We wanted to provide electronic feedback, other systems looked possible, there were various things already in the VLE which we’d previously had to hand code. We then had an external review and recommendations… Part of that was a steer towards internal tools. Sharepoint was one possibility… Atlas/Pebblepad was the other option and it is really simple to use. By this point we were in late autumn 2014, and needed a new system in place by February for dissertations. So, we decided to use the old part of our tool for student sign up, but do something new with Pebblepad for the rest of the process.

So, for the project we created a design brief. We did a massive stakeholder involvement process, spoke to committees, spoke to lots of staff. We designed a project that would have no (negative) impact on students. And ensured that training and documentation would be in place.

Graeme:With a custom system we have endless freedom… But that was the problem with the previous systems – there were too many options that led to unnecessary complexity. So, for this solution, we wanted to ensure the essentials were in there but jettison some of the more obscure processes requests – exceptions for those not wanting to follow the core process.

So, one of the key things was double-marking – that is a University requirement for any single piece of work over 40 credits. Blind marking is not mandatory across the university for double marking – but it is Business School policy. The difference, to note, is that for anonymous marking you don’t know who the student is – tricky with supervised dissertations of course. Blind marking is where one marker does not see the other’s marks until initial marking has been completed. That requirement had design implications. And once that double blind marking was done the markers have to see each others marks to reconcile and discuss.

In terms of the reconciliation we needed some depth of reasoning to be captured. So, in terms of managing this we wanted a process that involved:

  • Initial marking blind
  • Reconciliation
  • Recording reconciliation notes and comments – crucially always ensuring that the student had the appropriate feedback to the final mark. The supervisor has to manage this to ensure it is correct.
  • Marks fed back.

Early iterations were a sort of time-based model, making use of the permissions for different roles within the system. So permissions set for blind initial marking, meaning that at an agreed data permissions changed to allow reconciliations. That was suggested but… Actually the feedback was that that was unacceptable since markers mark at different paces and timings, it wouldn’t be possible.

This was a particular concern as the available functionality was via role based permissions – which means if you were marking 4 students, and second marking 5 students, all of those marks would be out of blind mode at the same time. To overcome this we created a model using separate workspaces for: initial marking (blind) – marker view and completing marking template, admin view and moving marked submissions; reconciliation – marker view and completion of reconciliation inputs, admin view; archive – locked down for exam board / feedback to students; Reporting function.

So, I’m going to demo all these workspaces now… All academic staff have a tutor role. Admin have lead tutor role – they can see everything. For academic staff it’s anonymous and blind – they can’t see names of students, each other’s names or marks. And we also made use of the inbuilt Atlas concept of “sets”… Very useful indeed. You set up a set… Academic A marks 4 students, make a set for that. When the marker goes in they only see the set they are allocated to… They don’t have to find their students… We have sets for first markers, sets for second markers… Can pick/filter between them. And the other reporting aspect uses sets – for cohorts, for groups, etc. So that you can account just on one MSc, or on a cluster of MScs in the same area, etc. So that’s really lovely. And admin can see all of the sets…

So, as a student you go in via Learn (the VLE), and go through to the submission area via a simple web form. Students were already submitting work via Turnitin in Learn. There is an integration for Turnitin and Atlas… But we aren’t keen on that as it looks at the moment. So, instead, they just submit once via the Pebblepad web form… And that is submitted to Turnitin and is available there for staff to check as appropriate. And the submission goes into the Pebblepad pipeline. We wanted this to be as simple as possible. I am looking at using Turnitin for the next round of marking, but the delay for now is about students seeing their own originality reports – something we usually do as standard in our use of Turnitin in the Business School, but not something that is currently part of the integration with Pebblepad.

As a marker you go in and see the students available to mark, you can view by whether you are first or second marker – based on the set those submissions are in. Our process isn’t sequential so the indicator in the workspace – a green tick – shows that I have marked a submission (there is a second set of indicators but as first marker I won’t see the second marker’s progress – and vice versa – but it is logged).

Then, as you open up a dissertation you can add comments as you read but… It is hard to get these out at the end. We want to be able to get that content out for quality team to look at rubric etc. BUT you can’t turn the comment panel off. Nor can you edit the text in that panel. So, we have feedback template – clicking on that brings up the appropriate template to complete, which guides the markers through the various aspects of the rubric. There is also a space for comments in the box. Originally I expected that to be comments for the other marker but the reality is that this box is used for comments for the students – which makes sense. Once the template is closed it is temporarily cached but you have to click “save and close” in the comment panel to capture that feedback. Then it is added to that comment panel again.

So, that’s initial feedback… When it comes to reconciling the marks… As a marker you’ll see submissions. You will want to know if you are first marker – with responsibility to feedback comments etc – or a second marker – in which case you are just needing to approve marks and feedback. So visually that difference is and has to be clear in the reconciliation panel/dashboard.

When you open up an assignment for reconciliation you can read the assignment, add reconciliation comments etc. There is also capacity for a third marker if the marks differ hugely. But it is crucial to use the correct templates at this stage – one is for student feedback, the other is for reconciliation comments. And there is no easy way to check which content has been added to which template other than manual checking.

As an admin of this system you are able to move submissions around, and to notify markers about that. Submissions are moved 5 or 6 times a day so markers rarely have a long wait for submissions to mark. This is straightforward to do – you just move between the various sets.

The only issues in the system has been around reconciliation of marking because we need to check every single submission to ensure the right type of comments and feedback are captured in the right place. If that needs fixing… Well initially that sat with me but the PG office came on board later last year, but we’d like to devolve the administration of this.

The feedback area is the locked down area. Once everything is verified it becomes non-anonymous and grade shown ready for admin staff to use or report on the submission. One of the limitation of Atlas is the reporting and the ability to summarise the reports. I have to create separate reports for each type of report – would like to do that as a single report for our QA team though.

So, finally… This system does fulfil the remit of anonymous double blind marking. Markers only see their own submission. Initial feedback isn’t released to students. Information can be locked down. But there are issues with templates being a wee bit clunky and problematic. The functionality is limited, reports are too separate and not able to combine at present. However…

We met with Pebblepad just before Christmas. We have asked for reporting from the comment panel – with that we wouldn’t need another template. We’ve asked about integrated reports. And also asked about the ability to turn off functionality if not being used.

Paul: Pebblepad are receptive to feedback, and they have made changes in the past – for instance they captured but didn’t show that matric number, which they have now added.

Ellen: Pebblepad is used in lots of different ways, which is great, but it was initially designed for personal reflective portfolios so they have thought these things through but assessment wasn’t their initial purpose for this tool and that is reflected in some of those challenges.

Graeme: We are also looking at this system for UG dissertations.

Paul: And what we learned here… Know your process… We would have saved loads of development time by knowing who to speak to and what they needed. Some people confused process changes for the new tool. We really needed a very active academic champion because of this. Engagement – you can never have enough. Graeme did loads of training and documentation – many didn’t engage in that and wanted one to one support, so we had to do that too. There has to be someone doing quality control – that is also about quality and level of feedback, not neccassarily to do with technical challenges. And in terms of limitations…. reporting was a real limitation, the data management – we wanted to report by set and couldn’t at the time (Ellen notes that there have been changes recently), and we needed to devolve that system. We also realised it was hard to develop a system without real data, and an understanding of how it could go wrong. But having done this for real we now have that much greater understanding.

Q: Can you integrate with groups in Learn?

Graeme: You can pull across sets, I haven’t tried it with groups.

Connecting up feedback – and possibly everything else – through an eportfolio – Paul McLaughlin, School of Biological Sciences

I wanted to talk about use of Pebblepad with undergraduates, particularly for getting them to connect ideas between courses. I’ve also been trying to induct undergraduates into Senior honours to get them to understand the importance of this… Understanding the importance is like being an actor… to get an Equity card you have to be an actor but to work as an actor you need to have an Equity card…

So, in our first year all biology students do a large biology course. They get extensive video feedback on their first undergraduate essay. We also ask them now to enter a feedback form via PebblePad of the feedback they are likely to get before they get their feedback. And then later on we ask them to reflect at the end of the course about what they have done, and how they will take that forward. They are asked to make an action plan – a bit formulaic but helps students take control of their learning. In the second course we are leading them towards an assessment problem that they need to complete. They get exam feedback around week 4 or 5 and then we encourage them to meet their tutors. Students post their action plan as a note into Euclid. They don’t need to know anything of Pebblepad to use that but they have a good place to start from with students.

Then, at the end of the year we ask them to look back at how it went, to reflect on what went well and less well. To compare semester 1 and semester 2. And students sometimes capture other aspects of life with impact on what they do – e.g. that they need to plan around flat hunting.

In terms of completion of tasks we see that the first few tasks around assessment we get good completion rates. When the process is only for their own benefit in the longterm we see less high completion rates.

So, I also wanted to talk about something else we do where we induct into senior hons as part of a tutorial and encourage both personal and group reflection. The idea is to help students prepare to make the jump to honours level work. We use Padlet as part of this. And we also have two summative exercises as part of that where we use Pebblepad for capturing reflections.

Finally I wanted to talk about work on our distance MSc. I was thinking about what it feels to be a distance learner, and the importance of feeling like you are making progress. I wanted the portfolio to be available for students to support themselves. Now, Pebblepad has the idea of a workbook that you can add ad build up… Overarching this is the graduate attributes the university has put together. So, a student can look at the graduate attributes – we give them three attributes that we think a given course can help provide evidence of. Students can then self-assess and add evidence to back up that attribute and their rating of their own achievement of that.

As the course progresses students choose their own attributes. By the end they have those attributes and the stories that tell where they are with those attributes. This is very connected to careers, to job applications… They have the information to look over and draw upon in their applications and interviews. In fact we also did some mock interviews with colleagues from Careers, using Collaborate. They then had to make an action plan based on that careers interview.

In that online MSc the students use their blogs for reflections and exercises like the interviews must connect back to these, to emphasise the value of regular timely content, engaging throughout.

But there are questions here… How do you assess this efficiently? How do you do quality assurance – especially if all very distributed? Should it speak for itself?

One of the things we’ve been talking about… We do see that that engagement can fall off if we don’t assess or push the issue. In the first two years of undergraduate courses there can be this issue of feeling that this doesn’t count. So, in the future perhaps the best measure of success is engagement – let’s just assess engagement and that can count towards a synoptic course (capstone) that is about reflection based on solid evidence collected through all four years. That would make reflection in the first two years really count. The missing thing for me is how to assess that efficiently.

Comment: I think we have a metric for engagement. We’ve just gone through SLIC’s pilot. That is basically this… 10 credits for additional credit. We had maybe 12 students go through this… We independently double marked, and all that was marked was how the student had responded to the learning outcomes. The students set the learning outcomes. We came up with the rubric and we gave halfway comments on their blogs if they wanted it. And all that we were marking was the reflection on that learning, and specifically the report on that experience at the end. It was remarkable how consistent the richness of engagement etc. was from people across schools, in areas that were not their speciality, and how consistent the marking was.

Paul M: The SLICs… If I wanted to see the SLICs would I be able to?

Commentator: Yes, you can see that by arrangement.

Paul M: In Pebblepad students have control… They can choose how things are shared… But that is also a challenge to see how these things have been used before…

Ellen: There are some case studies… And workflows… But we are also talking about setting up a local user group.

Q: Portfolios are things you might want to actually show an employer… Have you had much experience of employers etc. coming in?

Ellen: You’d actually share a web folio – like a website – which draws on it. But you wouldn’t give them Pebblepad access.

Paul M: Which is why it matters so much to tag things. But those web folios can be shared with named people, or wholly public… And I believe that Pebblepad is for life…

Ellen: Students don’t automatically keep student logins… But they can sign up for free lifetime account between completing course and graduating…

Me: I think it would be useful to look across how blogging is being used in other programmes for reflection, and how assessment works there, and can work there…

Paul M: There is lots of work but in terms of the pedagoguy here… I would also wonder how easy this stuff is to game…

Comment: For the SLICs (Student-Led Individually Created Courses) the quality of students was good, but actually the quality of material was actually brilliant… So you’d immediately see if someone was trying to game it…

Paul M: And it probably would take more to game it than to do it… I’m more concerned about students at the middle or bottom of the distribution, than those at the top… I’ve been considering a 10 credit course… For 20 credits that would be better perhaps but scary perhaps…

Comment: Senate have approved SLICCs. There is a very very strong recognition that students need to take ownership of their learning, and this is a strong way of moving forward on it…

Q: My question is a bit off topic… What happens if the student actually does see the first marker, the second marker, and the reconciliation comments. I think that’s a recognition of differences of opinion, academic discussion, and compromise of views through a different lens.

Paul C: I don’t think it’s a problem as long as everything is properly evidenced.

Greame F: It isn’t a problem… But the concern is about the potential for student appeals and questions… The process is good… But whether students should or shouldn’t see that hasn’t been part of our role here.

 

Question: Has anyone tried the next version of Pebblepad?

Greame F: I don’t think we’ll have access until summer 2016 or 2017.

Paul M: Our version is much more agile than it was… But still some challenges there.

Questionner: But MediaHopper (the new University media service) may also address some of those.

Question: How can this be used for peer assessed group work?

Paul M: You can use Pebblepad for group work, using various permissions etc, but haven’t tried that for peer assessment.

And we finished with some discussion of the Pebblepad responsiveness to feedback – they seem very responsive – particularly for new or unexpected use.

 

 January 28, 2016  Posted by at 1:18 pm LiveBlogs Tagged with:  No Responses »