Jun 282017
 

Today I am at the eLearning@ed Conference 2017, our annual day-long event for the eLearning community across the University of Edinburgh – including learning technologies, academic staff and some post graduate students. As I’m convener of the community I’m also chairing some sessions today so the notes won’t be at quite my normal pace!

As usual comments, additions and corrections are very welcome. 

For the first two sections I’m afraid I was chairing so there were no notes… But huge thanks to Anne Marie for her excellent quick run through exciting stuff to come… 

Welcome – Nicola Osborne, elearning@ed Convenor

Forthcoming Attractions – Anne Marie Scott, Head of Digital Learning Applications and Media

And with that it was over to our wonderful opening keynote… 

Opening Keynote: Prof. Nicola Whitton, Professor of Professional Learning, Manchester Metropolitan University: Inevitable Failure Assessment? Rethinking higher education through play (Chair: Dr Jill MacKay)

Although I am in education now, my background is as a computer scientist… So I grew up with failure. Do you remember the ZX Spectrum? Loading games there was extremely hit and miss. But the games there – all text based – were brilliant, they worked, they took you on adventures. I played all the games but I don’t think I ever finished one… I’d get a certain way through and then we’d have that idea of catastrophic failure…

And then I met a handsome man… It was unrequited… But he was a bit pixellated… Here was Guybush Threepwood of the Monkey Island series. And that game changed everything – you couldn’t catastrophically fail, it was almost impossible. But in this game you can take risks, you can try things, you can be innovative… And that’s important for me… That space for failure…

The way that we and our students think about failure in Higher Education, and deal with failure in Higher Education. If we think that going through life and never failing, we will be set for disappointment. We don’t laud the failures. J.K. Rowling, biggest author, rejected 12 times. The Beatles, biggest band of the 20th Century, were rejected by record labels many many time. The lightbulb failed hundreds of times! Thomas Edison said he didn’t fail 100 times, he succeeded in lots of stages…

So, to laud failure… Here are some of mine:

  1. Primary 5 junior mastermind – I’m still angry! I chose horses as my specialist subject so, a tip, don’t do that!
  2. My driving test – that was a real resiliance moment… I’ll do it again… I’ll have more lessons with my creepy driving instructor, but I’ll do it again.
  3. First year university exams – failed one exam, by one mark… It was borderline and they said “but we thought you need to fail” – I had already been told off for not attending lectures. So I gave up my summer job, spent the summer re-sitting. I learned that there is only so far you can push things… You have to take things seriously…
  4. Keeping control of a moped – in Thailand, with no training… Driving into walls… And learning when to give up… (we then went by walking and bus)
  5. Funding proposals and article submissions, regularly, too numerous to count – failure is inevitable… As academics we tend not to tell you about all the times we fail… We are going to fail… So we have to be fine to fail and learn from it. I was involved in a Jisc project in 2009… I’ve published most on it… It really didn’t work… And when it didn’t work they funded us to write about that. And I was very lucky, one of the Innovation Programme Managers who had funded us said “hey, if some of our innovation funding isn’t failing, then we aren’t being innovative”. But that’s not what we talk about.

For us, for our students… We have to understand that failure is inevitable. Things are currently set up as failure being a bad outcome, rather than an integral part of the learning process… And learning from failure is really important. I have read something – though I’ve not been able to find it again – that those who pass their driving test on the second attempt are better drives. Failure is about learning. I have small children… They spent their first few years failing to talk then failing to walk… That’s not failure though, it’s how we learn…

Just a little bit of theory. I want to talk a bit about the concept of the magic circle… The Magic Circle came from game theory, from the 1950s. Picked up by ? Zimmerman in early 2000s… The idea is that when you play with someone, you enter this other space, this safe space, where normal rules don’t apply… Like when you see animals playfighting… There is mutual agreement that this doesn’t count, that there are rules and safety… In Chess you don’t just randomly grab the king. Pub banter can be that safe space with different rules applying…

This happens in games, this happens in physical play… How can we create magic circles in learning… So what is that:

  • Freedom to fail – if you won right away, there’s no point in playing it. That freedom to fail and not be constrained by the failure… How we look at failure in games is really different from how we look at failure in Higher Education.
  • Lusory attitude – this is about a willingness to engage in play, to forget about the rules of the real world, to abide by the rules of this new situation. To park real life… To experiment, that is powerful. And that idea came from Leonard Suits whose book, The Grasshopper, is a great Playful Learning read.
  • Intrinsic motivation – this is the key area of magic circle for higher education. The idea that learning can be and should be intrinsically motivating is really really important.

So, how many of you have been in an academic reading group? OK, how many have lasted more than a year? Yeah, they rarely last long… People don’t get round to reading the book… We’ve set up a book group with special rules: you either HAVE To read the book, or your HAVE TO PRETEND that you read the book. We’ve had great turn out, no idea if they all read the books… But we have great discussion… Reframing that book group just a small bit makes a huge difference.

That sort of tiny change can be very powerful for integrating playfulness. We don’t think twice about doing this with children… Part of the issue with play, especially with adults, is what matters about play… About that space to fail. But also the idea of play as a socialised bonding space, for experimentation, for exploration, for possibilities, for doing something else, for being someone else. And the link with motivation is quite well established… I think we need to understand that different kind of play has different potential, but it’s about play and people, and safe play…

This is my theory heavy slide… This is from a paper I’ve just completed with colleagues in Denmark. We wanted to think “what is playful learning”… We talk about Higher Education and playful learning in that context… So what actually is it?

Well there is signature pedagogy for playful learning in higher education, under which we have surface (game) structures; deep (play) structures; implicit (playful) structures. Signature pedagogy could be architecture or engineering…

This came out of work on what students respond to…

So Surface (game) structures includes: ease of entry and explicit progression; appropriate and flexible levels of challenge; engaging game mechanics; physical or digital artefacts. Those are often based around games and digital games… But you can be playful without games…

Deep (play) structures is about: active and physical engagement; collaboration with diversity; imagining possibilities; novelty and surprises.

Implicit (playful) structures: lusory attitude; democratice values and openness; acceptance of risk-taking and failure; intrinsic motivation. That is so important for us in higher education…

So, rant alert…

Higher Education is broken. And that is because schools are broken. I live in Manchester (I know things aren’t as bad in Scotland) and we have assessment all over the place… My daughter is 7 sitting exams. Two weeks of them. They are talking about exams for reception kids – 4 year olds! We have a performative culture of “you will be assessed, you will be assessed”. And then we are surprised when that’s how our students respond… And have the TEF appearing… The golds, silvers, and bronze… Based on fairly random metrics… And then we are surprised when people work to the metrics. I think that assessment is a great way to suck out all the creativity!

So, some questions my kids have recently asked:

  • Are there good viruses? I asked an expert… apparently there are for treating people.. (But they often mutate.)
  • Do mermaids lay eggs? Well they are part fish…
  • Do Snow Leopards eat tomatoes? Where did this question come from? Who knows? Apparently they do eat monkeys… What?!

But contrast that to what my students ask:

  • Will I need to know this for the exam?
  • Are we going to be assessed on that?

That’s what happens when we work to the metrics…

We are running a course where there were two assessments. One was formative… And students got angry that it wasn’t worth credit… So I started to think about what was important about assessment? So I plotted the feedback from low to high, and consequence from low to high… So low consequence, low feedback…

We have the idea of the Trivial Fail – we all do those and it doesn’t matter (e.g. forgetting to signal at a roundabout), and lots of opportunity to fail like that.

We also have the Critical Fail – High Consequence and Low Feedback – kids exams and quite a lot of university assessment fits there.

We also have Serious Fail – High Consequence and High Feedback – I’d put PhD Vivas there… consequences matter… But there is feedback and can be opportunity to manage that.

What we need to focus on in Higher Education is the Micro Fail – low consequence with high feedback. We need students to have that experience, and to value that failure, to value failure without consequence…

So… How on earth do we actually do this? How about we “Level Up” assessment… With bosses at the end of levels… And you keep going until you reach as far as you need to go, and have feedback filled in…

Or the Monkey Island assessment. There is a goal but it doesn’t matter how you get there… You integrate learning and assessment completely, and ask people to be creative…

Easter Egg assessment… Not to do with chocolate but “Easter Eggs” – suprises… You don’t know how you’ll be assessed… Or when you’ll be assessed… But you will be! And it might be fun! So you have to go to lectures… Real life works like that… You can’t know which days will count ahead of time.

Inevitable Failure assessment… You WILL fail first time, maybe second time, third time… But eventually pass… Or even maybe you can’t ever succeed and that’s part of the point.

The point is that failure is inevitable and you need to be able to cope with that and learn from that. On which note… Here is my favourite journal, the Journal of Universal Rejection… This is quite a cathartic experience, they reject everything!

So I wanted to talk about a project that we are doing with some support from the HEA… Eduscapes… Have you played Escape Rooms? They are so addictive! There are lots of people creating educational Escape Rooms… This project is a bit different… So there are three parts… You start by understanding what the Escape Room is, how they work; then some training; and then design a game. But they have to trial them again and again and again. We’ve done this with students, and with high school students three times now. There is inevitable failure built in here… And the project can run over days or weeks or months… But you start with something and try and fail and learn…

This is collaborative, it is creative – there is so much scope to play with, sometimes props, sometimes budget, sometimes what they can find… In the schools case they were maths and Comp Sci students so there was a link to the curriculum. It is not assessed… But other people will see it – that’s quite a powerful motivator… We have done this with reflection/portfolio assessment… That resource is now available, there’s a link, and it’s a really simple way to engage in something that doesn’t really matter…

And while I’m here I have to plug our conference, Playful Learning, now in its second year. We were all about thinking differently about conferences… But always presenting at traditional conferences. So our conference is different… Most of it is hands on, all different stuff, a space to do something different – we had a storytelling in a tent as one of these… Lots of space but nothing really went wrong. But we need something to fail. Applications are closed this year… But there will be a call next year… So play more, be creative, fail!

So, to finish… I’m playful, play has massive potential… But we also have to think about diversity of play, the resilience to play… A lot of the research on playful learning, and assessment doesn’t recognise the importance of gender, race, context, etc… And the importance of the language we use in play… It has nuance, and comes with distinctions… We have to encourage people to play ad get involved. And we really have to re-think assessment – for ourselves, of universities, of students, of school pupils… Until we rethink this, it will be hard to have any real impact for playful learning…

Jill: Thank you so much, that was absolutely brilliant. And that Star Trek reference is “Kobayashi Maru”!

Q&A

Q1) In terms of playful learning and assessment, I was wondering how self-assessment can work?

A1) That brings me back to previous work I have done around reflection… And I think that’s about bringing that reflection into playful assessment… But it’s a hard question… More space and time for reflection, possibly more space for support… But otherwise not that different from other assessment.

Q2) I run a research methods course for an MSc… We tried to invoke playfulness with a fake data set with dragons and princesses… Any other examples of that?

A2) I think that that idea of it being playful, rather than games, is really important. Can use playful images, or data that makes rude shapes when you graph is!

Q3) Nic knows that I don’t play games… I was interested in that difference between gaming and play and playfulness… There is something about games that don’t entice me at all… But that Lusory attitude did feel familiar and appealing… That suspension of disbelief and creativity… And that connection with gendered discussion of play and games.

A3) We are working on a taxonomy of play. That’s quite complex… Some things are clearly play… A game, messing with LEGO… Some things are not play, but can be playful… Crochet… Jigsaw puzzles… They don’t have to be creative… But you can apply that attitude to almost anything. So there is play and there is a playful attitude… That latter part is the key thing, the being prepared to fail…

Q4) Not all games are fun… Easy to think playfulness and games… A lot of games are work… Competitive gaming… Or things like World of Warcraft – your wizard chores. And intensity there… Failure can be quite problematic if working with 25 people in a raid – everyone is tired and angry… That’s not a space where failure is ok… So in terms of what we can learn from games it is important to remember that games aren’t always fun or playful…

A4) Indeed, and not all play is fun… I hate performative play – improv, people touching me… It’s about understanding… It’s really nuanced. It used to be that “students love games because they are fun” and now “students love play because it’s fun” and that’s still missing the point…

Q5) I don’t think you are advocating this but… Thinking about spoonful of sugar making assessment go down… Tricking students into assessment??

A5) No. It’s taking away the consequences in how we think about assessment. I don’t have a problem with exams, but the weight on that, the consequences of failure. It is inevitable in HE that we grade students at different levels… So we have to think about how important assessment is in the real world… We don’t have equivelents of University assessments in the real world… Lets say I do a bid, lots of work, not funded… In real world I try again. If you fail your finals, you don’t get to try again… So it’s about not making it “one go and it’s over”… That’s hard but a big change and important.

Q6) I started in behavioural science in animals… Play there is “you’ll know it when you see it” – we have clear ideas of what other behaviours look like, but play is hard to describe but you know it when you see it… How does that work in your taxonomy…

A6) I have a colleague who is a physical science teacher trainer… And he’s gotten to “you’ll know it when you see it”… Sometimes that is how you perceive that difference… But that’s hard when you apply for grants! It’s a bit of an artificial exercise…

Q7) Can you tell us more about play and cultural diversity, and how we need to think about that in HE?

A7) At the moment we are at the point that people understand and value play in different way. I have a colleague looking at diversity in play… A lot of research previously is on men, and privileged white men… So partly it’s about explaining why you are doing, what you are doing, in the way you are doing it… You have to think beyond that, to appropriateness, to have play in your toolkit…

Q8) You talk about physical spaces and playfulness… How much impact does that have?

A8) It’s not my specialist area but yes, the physical space matters… And you have to think about how to make your space more playful..

Introductions to Break Out Sessions: Playful Learning & Experimentation (Nicola Osborne)

  • Playful Learning – Michael Boyd (10 min)

We are here today with the UCreate Studio… I am the manager of the space, we have student assistants. We also have high school students supporting us too. This pilot runs to the end of July and provides a central Maker Space… To create things, to make things, to generate ideas… This is mixture of the maker movement, we are a space for playful learning through making. There are about 1400 maker spaces world wide, many in Universities in the UK too… Why do they pop up in Universities? They are great creative spaces to learn.

You can get hands on with technology… It is about peer based learning… And project learning… It’s a safe space to fail – it’s non assessed stuff…

Why is it good for learning? Well for instance the World Economic Forum predict that 35% of core professional skills will change from 2015 to 2020. Complex problem solving, critical thinking, creativity, judgement and decision making, cognitive flexibility… These are things that can’t be automated… And can be supported by making and creating…

So, what do we do? We use new technologies, we use technologies that are emerging but not yet widely adopted. And we are educational… That first few months is the hard bit… We don’t lecture much, we are there to help and guide and scaffold. Students can feel confident that they have support if they need it.

And, we are open source! Anyone in the University can use the space, be supported in the space, for free as long as they openly share and license whatever they make. Part of that bigger open ethos.

So, what gets made? Includes academic stuff… Someone made a holder for his spectrometer and 3D printed it. He’s now looking to augment this with his chemistry to improve that design; we have Josie in archeology scanning artefacts and then using that to engage people – using VR; Dimitra in medicine, following a poster project for a cancer monitoring chip, she started prototyping; Hayden in Geosciences is using 3D scanning to see the density of plant matter to understand climate change.

But it’s not just that. Also other stuff… Henry studies architecture, but has a grandfather who needs meds and his family worries if he takes his medicine.. So he’s designed a system that connects a display of that. Then Greg on ECA is looking at projecting memories on people… To see how that helps…

So, I wanted to flag some ideas we can discuss… One of he first projects when I arrived, Fiona Hale and Chris Speed (ECA) ran “Maker Go” had product design students, across the years, to come up with a mobile maker space project… Results were fantastic – a bike to use to scan a space… A way to follow and make paths with paint, to a coffee machine powered by failed crits etc. Brilliant stuff. And afterwards there was a self-organised (first they can remember) exhibtion, Velodrama…

Next up was Edinburgh IoT challenge… Students and academics came together to address challenges set by Council, Uni, etc. Designers, Engineers, Scientists… Led to a really special project, 2 UG students approached us to set yp the new Embedded adn Robotics Society – they run sessions every two weeks. And going strength to strength.

Last but not least… Digital manufacturing IP session trialled last term with Dr Stema Kieria, to explore 3D scanning and printing and the impact on IPs… Huge areas… Echos of taping songs off the radio. Took something real, showed it hands on, learned about technologies, scanned copyright materials, and explored this. They taught me stuff! And that led to a Law and Artificial Intelligence Hackathon in March. This was law and informatics working together, huge ideas… We hope to see them back in the studio soon!

  • Near Future Teaching Vox Pops – Sian Bayne (5 mins)

I am Assistant Vice Principal for Digital Education and I was very keen to look at designing the future of digital education at Edinburgh. I am really excited to be here today… We want you to answer some questions on what teaching will look like in this university in 20 or 30 years time:

  • will students come to campus?
  • will we come to campus?
  • will we have AI tutors?
  • How will teaching change?
  • Will learning analytics trigger new things?
  • How will we work with partner organisations?
  • Will peers accredit each other?
  • Will MOOCs stull exist?
  • Will performance enhancement be routine?
  • Will lectures still exist?
  • Will exams exist?
  • Will essays be marked by software?
  • Will essays exist?
  • Will discipline still exist?
  • Will the VLE still exist?
  • Will we teach in VR?
  • Will the campus be smart? And what does eg IoT to monitor spaces mean socially?
  • Will we be smarter through technology?
  • What values should shape how we change? How we use these technologies?

Come be interviewed for our voxpops! We will be videoing… If you feel brave, come see us!

And now to a break… and our breakout sessions, which were… 

Morning Break Out Sessions

  • Playful Learning Mini Maker Space (Michael Boyd)
  • 23 Things (Stephanie (Charlie) Farley)
  • DIY Film School (Gear and Gadgets) (Stephen Donnelly)
  • World of Warcraft (download/set up information here) (Hamish MacLeod & Clara O’Shea)
  • Near Future Teaching Vox Pops (Sian Bayne)

Presentations: Fun and Games and Learning (Chair: Ruby Rennie, Lecturer, Institute for Education, Teaching and Leadership (Moray House School of Education))

  • Teaching with Dungeons & Dragons – Tom Boylston

I am based in Anthropology and we’ve been running a course on the anthropology of games. And I just wanted to talk about that experience of creating playful teaching and learning. So, Dungeons and Dragons was designed in the 1970s… You wake up, your chained up in a dungeon, you are surrounded by aggressive warriors… And as a player you choose what to do – fight them, talk to them, etc… And you can roll a dice to decide an action, to make the next play. It is always a little bit improvisational, and that’s where the fun comes in!

There are some stigmas around D&D as the last bastion of the nerdy white bloke… But… The situation we had was a 2 hour lecture slot, and I wanted to split that in two. To engage with a reading on the creative opportunities of imagination. I wanted them to make a character, alsmot like creative writing classes, to play that character and see what that felt like, how that changed that… Because part of the fun of role playing is getting to be someone else. Now these games do raise identity issues – gender, race, sexuality… That can be great but it’s not what you want in a big group with people you don’t yet have trust with… But there is something special about being in a space with others, where you don’t know what could happen… It is not a simple thing to take a traditional teaching setting and make it playful… One of the first things we look at when we think about play is people needing to consent to play… And if you impose that on a room, that’s hard…

So early in the course we looked at Erving Goffman’s Frame Analysis, and we used Pictionary cards… We looked at the social cues from the space, the placement of seats, microphones, etc. And then the social cues of play… Some of the foundational work of animal play asks us how you know dogs are playfighting… It’s the half-bite, playful rather than painful… So how do I invite a room full of people to play? I commanded people to play Pictionary, to come up and play… Eventually someone came up… Eventually the room accepted that and the atmosphere changed. It really helped that we had been reading about framing. And I asked what had changed and there were able to think and talk about that…

But D&D… People were sceptical. We started with students making me a character. They made me Englebert, a 5 year old lizard creature… To display the playful situation, a bit silly, to model and frame the situation… Sent them comedy D&D podcasts to listen to and asked them to come back a week later… I promised that we wouldn’t do it every week but… I shared some creative writing approaches to writing a back story, to understand what would matter about this character… Only having done this preparatory work, thought about framing… Only then did I try out my adventure on them… It’s about a masquerade in Camaroon, and children try on others’ masks… I didn’t want to appropriate that. But just to take some cues and ideas and tone from that. And when we got to the role playing, the students were up for it… And we did this either as individual students, or they could pair up…

And then we had a debrief – crucial for a playful experience like this. People said there was more negotiation than they expected as they set up the scene and created. They were surprised how people took care of their characters…

The concluding thing was… At the end of the course I had probably shared more that I cared about. Students interrupted me more – with really great ideas! And students really engaged.

Q&A

Q1) Would you say that D&D would be a better medium than an online role playing game… Exemporisation rather than structured compunction?

A1) We did talk about that… We created a WoW character… There really is a lot of space, unexpected situations you can create in D&D… Lots of improvisation… More happened in that than in the WoW stuff that we did… It was surprisingly great.

Q2) Is that partly about sharing and revealing you, rather than the playfulness per se?

A2) Maybe a bit… But I would have found that hard in another context. The discussion of games really brought that stuff out… It was great and unexpected… Play is the creation of unexpected things…

Q3) There’s a trust thing there… We can’t expect students to trust us and the process, unless we show our trust ourselves…

A3) There was a fair bit of background effort… Thinking about signalling a playful space, and how that changes the space… The playful situations did that without me intending to or trying to!

Digital Game Based Learning in China – Sihan Zhou

I have been finding this event really inspiring… There is so much to think around playfulness. I am from China, and the concept of playful learning is quite new in China so I’m pleased to talk to you about the platform we are creating – Tornado English…

On this platform we have four components – a bilingual animation, a game, and a bilingual chat bot… If the user clicks on the game, they can download it… So far we have created two games: Word Pop – vocabulary learning and Run Rabbit – syntactic learning, both based around Mayer’s model (2011).

The games mechanics are usually understood but comparing user skills and level of challenge – too easy and users will get bored, but if it’s too challenging then users will be frustrated and demotivated. So for apps in China, many of the educational products tend to be more challenging than fun – more educational apps than educational games. So in our games use timing and scoring to make things more playful and interactions like popping bubbles, clicking on moles popping out of holes in the ground. In Word Smash students have to match images to vocab as quickly as possible… In Run Rabbit… The student has to speak a phrase in order get the rabbit to run to the right word in the game and placing it…

When we designed the game, we considered how we could ensure that the game is educationally effective, and to integrate it with the English curriculum in school. We tie to the 2011 English Curriculum Standards for Compulsory Education in China. Students have to complete a sequence of levels to reach the next level of learning – autonomous learning in a systematic way.

So, we piloted this app in China, working with 6 primary schools in Harbin, China. Data has been collected from interviews with teachers, classroom observation, and questionnaires with parents.

This work is a KTP – a Knowledge Transfer Partnership – project and the KTP research is looking at Chinese primary school teachers’ attitudes towards game-based learning. And there is also an MSc TESOL Dissertation looking at teachers attitudes towards game based learning… For instance they may or may not be able to actually use these tools in the classroom because of the way teaching is planned and run. The results of this work will be presented soon – do get in touch.

Our future game development will focus more on a communicative model, task-based learning, and learner autonomy. So the character lands on a new planet, have to find their way, repair their rocket, and return to earth… To complete those task the learner has to develop the appropriate language to do well… But this is all exploratory so do talk to me and to inspire me.

Q&A

Q1) I had some fantastic Chinese students in my playful anthropology course and they were explaining quite mixed attitudes to these approaches in China. Clearly there is that challenge to get authorities to accept it… But what’s the compromise between learning and fun.

A1) The game has features designed for fun… I met with education bureu and teachers, to talk about how this is eduationally effective… Then when I get into classrooms to talk to the students, I focus more on gaming features, why you play it, how you progress and unlock new levels. Emphasis has to be quite different depending on the audience. One has to understand the context.

Q2) How have the kids responded?

A2) They have been really inspired and want to try it out. The kids are 8 or 9 years old… They were keen but also knew that their parents weren’t going to be as happy about playing games in the week when they are supposed to do “homework”. We get data on how this used… We see good use on week days, but huge use on weekends, and longer play time too!

Q3) In terms of changing attitudes to game based learning in China… If you are wanting to test it in Taiwan the attitude was different, we were expected to build playful approaches in…

A3) There is “teaching reform” taking place… And more games and playfulness in the classrooms. But digital games was the problem in terms of triggering a mentality and caution. The new generation uses more elearning… But there is a need to demonstrate that usefulness and take it out to others.

VR in Education – Cinzia Pusceddu-Gangarosa

I am manager of learning technology in the School of Biological Sciences, and also a student on the wonderful MS in Digital Education. I’m going to talk about Virtual Reality in Education.

I wanted to start by defining VR. The definition I like best is from Mirriam Webster. It includes key ideas… the idea of “simulated world” and the ways one engaging with it. VR technologies include headsets like Oculus Rift (high end) through to Google Cardboard (low end) that let you engage… But there is more interesting stuff there too… There are VR “Cave” spaces – where you enter and are surrounded by screens. There are gloves, there are other kinds of experience.

Part of virtual reality is about an intense idea of presence, of being there, of being immersed in the world, fully engaged – so much so that the interface disappears, you forget you are using technologies.

In education VR is not anything new. The first applications were in the 1990s…. But in 200s desktop VR becomes more common – spaces such as Second Life – more acceptable and less costly to engage with.

I want to show you a few examples here… One of the first experiments was from the Institute for Simulation and Training, PA, where students could play “noseball” to play with a virtual ball in a set of wearables. You can see they still use headsets, similar to now but not particularly sophisticated… I also wanted to touch on some other university experiments with VR… The first one is Google Expeditions. This is not a product that has been looked at in universities – it has been trialled in schools a lot… It’s a way to travel in time and space through Google Cardboard… Through the use of apps and tools… And Google supports teachers to use this.

A more interesting experiment is an experiment at Stanford’s Virtual Human Interaction Lab, looking at cognitive effects on students behaviour, and perspective-taking in these spaces, looking at empathy – how VR promotes and encourages empathy. Students impersonating a tree, are more cautious wasting paper. Or impersonating a person has more connection and thoughtfulness about their behaviour to that person… Even an experiment on being a cow and whether that might make them more likely to make them a vegetarian.

Another interesting experiment is at Boston University who are engaging with Ulysses – based on a book but not in a literal way. At Penn State they have been experimenting with VR and tactile experiences.

So, to conclude, what are the strengths of VR in education? Well it is about experience what its not possible – cost, distance, time, size, safety. Also non-symbolic learning (maths, chemistry, etc); learning by doing; and engaging experiences. But there are weaknesses too: it is hard to find a VR designer; it requires technical support; and sometimes VR may not be the right technology – maybe we want to replicate the wrong thing, maybe not innovative enough…

Q&A

Q1) Art Gallery/use in your area?

A1) I would like to do a VR project. It’s hard to understand until you try it out… Most of what I’ve presented is based on what I’ve read and researched, but I would love to explore the topic in a real project.

Q2) With all these technologies, I was wondering if a story is an important accompaniment to the technology and the experience?

A2) I think we do need a story. I don’t think any technology adds value unless we have a vision, and an understanding of full potential of the technology – and what it does differently, and what it really adds to the situation and the story…

Coming up…

Afternoon Keynote: Dr Hamish MacLeod, Senior Lecturer in Digital Education, Institute for Education, Community and Society, Moray House School of Education: Learning with and through Ambiguity (Chair: Cinzia Pusceddu-Gangarosa)

Nicola was talking about her youth and childhood… I will share one too.. I knew all was fine and well, that I was expected… When my primary school teacher, when I was 7, pushed me into the swimming pool. This threat was absolutely no threat… My superpower was to arise miraculously undrowned. That playful interaction was important me, it signalled a relationship, a sign of belonging… A trivial example but…

Playfulness can cement relationships between learners and teachers without judgement. Something similar arose when we ran our eLearning and Digital Cultures MOOC, there was gentle mocking of the team… So for instance there was a video of us as animated Star Trek characters – not just playful but reflecting back to us our ideas… My all time favourite playful response, one of the digital artefacts created, was Andy Mitchell’s intervention… A fake Twitter account, in my name, automatically tweeting cyber security messages. We thouroughly approved and Andy was one of our volunteer tutors on the next run.

Brian Sutton Smith talks about the ambiguity of play, understanding play in both humans and animals, in young and in mature individuals. He came up with 7 rhetorics of play:

  • Play as progress – child development. We talk about children playing, adults engaging in recreation.We can be frivolous as adults but not playful.
  • Play as fate – games of change
  • Play as power – competition and sporting prowess
  • Play as (community) identity, festivals and carnivals
  • Play as the Imaginary and phantasmagorical, narrative and theatrical
  • Play as Self-actualisation
  • Play as Frivolous

For adults play is seen very different. Breugl shows play as time wasting and problematic… But then he also paints children at play…  I commend to you the Wikipedia article on Children playing game – over 80 games defined there and that definition is interesting.

When dogs playfight they prolong “fight”, they self-disable to keep things going… Snapshots don’t tell you it’s playful… But it is. And one give away is the pre-cursor… playful postures, trusting postures… The play context is real. The nip is not a bite, but neither is it not-a-bite… It’s what the bite means (Schechner (1988)). Context is everything. There is a marvellous quote on the about-ness of learning “there is a reason that education is an accusative”.

I was very taken by Jen Ross’ Learning with Digital Provocations talk at the CAHSS Digital Day of Ideas earlier this year. This talk aims to reanimate the debate, framing disruption in terms of “inventiveness, provocation, uncertainty and the concept of ‘not-yetness'”. Disruption says it is revolutionary, but it is not all that revolutionary in it’s reality. We have guru’s of disruption claiming that university is for training students for jobs…

Assuming we aren’t training students for the zombie apocalypse, what are we doing in Higher Education? Well we want our students to behave intelligently, in the sense of Piaget. Or in the sense of Burrhus Frederic Skinner – “Education is what is left when what we have learned has been forgotten”. There are some sorts of skills and mindset for meeting new challenges that they have not met before…

So that mindset, those skills, do have some alignment with Sutton Smith’s ideas of play. And I wanted to show a wonderful local example [a video of Professor Alan Murray – who actually taught me with the innovative and memorable electric guitar/memorable analogies shown in the video].

So, before I move on… Who wants to get the ball into the cup? [cue controlled chaos with three volunteers].

One classic definition of play (Man, Play and Games – Roger Cailois) – it is entered into freely, it has no particular purpose. And again Bernard Suits’ The Grasshopper, it has my favourite definition: “the voluntary attempt to overcome unneccessary obstacles”. This is the lusory attitude Nicola talks about… And that is about overlooking efficient solutions simply for

Thank you to Ross Galloway for an example here… Enrico Fermi came up with the idea of Fermi Problems – making informed guesses and estimates for calculations where a solution does not (yet) exist. Estimation is an important skill. Ross’ example was “can we estimate how much it costs to light all of Edinburgh” – students had their own answers… But tutors saw similar and precise results. Of course you can Google “what does it cost to light Edinburgh”. To use that is to miss the point. The students getting that answer and using it don’t get that it is about understanding how to approach the problem, not what the answer is.

But there is a real challenge to find problems that cannot be solved by Google… That ensures there is that space for play and creative approach.

I wanted to give an example here of our MSc in Digital Education module in the Introduction to Digital Games-Based Learning, which was set up with a great deal of input from Fiona Hale, and many Edinburgh colleagues, as well as Nicola Whitton herself and her book Learning with Digital Games. Several other texts key for us is Digital Games Based Learning by Marc Prensky, and James Paul Gee’s What Vide Games have to teach us about learning and literacy. These two books are radically different. Prensky talks about games mediating instead of traditional approaches, as a modern solution. Gee meanwhile suggests drawing on successful principles from games – he argued that learning should become more playful and game informed. I would say that Gee has been firmly on the right side of history… And that’s reflected in the naming of today, of Nicola’s conference, and indeed the recommended new ALT Playful Learning Special Interest Group – which has changed it’s name from games based learning.

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be using games in learning… but…

Gee outlines 13 principles, and I’d like to draw out:

  • co-design

Students having agency and taking decisions in their learning, project based, resource based learning, etc. I would say an excellent local example here is the SLICCs – the Student-Led Individually-Created Courses, also Pete Evan’s work on micro credit courses. So this is about agency, ownership. Although learners may need structure and constraint to have agency in this context.

  • Identity and belonging

Identity formation is what happens in education, and also in game (a warlock, a blue hedgehogs, etc.), our law students will become lawyers, our medical students will become doctors. Not to be disrespectful but it can be useful to think about our students as “playing at” being professionals. Lave and Wenger talk about this process, of legitimate peripheral participation. Gee talks about the real, virtual and projective identities… “Saying that if learners in classrooms carry learning so far as to take on a projective identity, something magical happens…” A marvellous example of this, and you can see a video on MediaHopper, of the “white coat ceremony” at the Vet School. The aim is to welcome students into membership of the profession and the community. Certificates are presented, photographs are taken, students then get to put on their white coats for the first time… And then students stand and recite the vet student oath. And then they celebrate with rather staged photographs! And at the end of the year they have a big class photo – in their animal onsies! This is serious fun, this is a right of passage, it is a welcoming into the community. And it symbolises taking on that identity…

  • Fish tanks and
  • Sand boxes

This is about safe space to explore, to play, to experiment. There is a key role for us here in our own practice, but also in how peers may impact on that safety… Sometimes we need to play the fool ourselves, to take the pressure off a student, to take the fire away from someone and reinforcing play as legitimate. This is the idea of “teacher as jester”. Sandboxes are about tinkering, about ideas of brickolage comes in here – as in the constructivism of ? and in Sherry Turkle’s work. And indeed uCreate and 23 Things, space to play and create and have space to think…

It has been said by some students that they don’t enjoy our games-based learning course… And then they do the course design module and then they get it… And in that spirit… I would heartily recommend Charlie Farley and Gavin Willshaw’s Board Game Jams – in one hour there is new language, metaphor, ways to think about what we do in education.

In our course we do also talk about stories…. I’m sure many of you have worked with the notion of role playing, but there are wider and more inclusive approaches in “scenario learning”. One of our former colleagues here, Martin Crapper, talked about environmental enquiry processes and, rather than lecture on it, he actually held an environmental enquiry. The students were engaged, over 2 days, to come with prepared statements as they would as expert witnesses in an environmental enquiry for developers or environmental groups. So rather than read about or think about, they participated.

Another example, a student on our course who teaches at the University of Sunderland, uses a legal appeal around illegally selling cinema tickets. Sophie presents to her students a letter that she asks students to imagines that she found in the archive… In this case the correspondent wants an expert witness in cognitive psychology on parsing and understanding evidence that might be used there.

And briefly… Gamification… This sits in various ways, such as PeerWise. The bit that I think is most useful here isn’t answering questions for peers, but authoring questions. Many of the features here are reminiscent of social networks – you can upvote, follow, engage. There is also a pushback by some students who see this as a trivial experience… A push back to Sutton Smith’s frivolity… And we also have Top Hat – voting on learners old mobile devices, the new equivalent of clickers… Lecture events can be made interactive in this way… Students should be presented with a question, vote on it, and the idea is that when students discuss the question they are more likely to converge on the right answer… What about students who got the right answer right away… What do they talk about? The evidence is that they discuss the problem, other boundary cases… They continue to “play the game” here… They keep that lusory attitude.

I will mention this book – although failure has been well covered – “The art of failure: an essay on the pain of playing video gaes” – Jesper Juul.

So I argue that ALL conceptual learning is accompanied with the sound of pennies dropping… a trickle or a clunk. We talk about threshold concepts, we can see these or recall these as issues we have overcome. All learning involves thresholds and overcoming them. All learning happens in a liminal space, becoming, crossing over, finding the right place to cross over… We may have to try different ways… Often we have to engage actively in doing that which we wish to understand. Papert talks about students learning by doing, and reflecting on what they have done – Brickolage. I would argue this is the territory of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development – I can succeed with the help of a skilled peer, it is the space of apprenticeship… It is scary but if embrace the ambiguity of play we can make learning more successful.

Q&A

Q1) I wanted to ask you about the twin idea of risk and safety. In your talk I don’t know if the playful learning you are talking about should be risky and dangerous, or should it just look like that?

A1) I think perhaps it should be increasingly risky… So that one is supported in taking risks. Gee talks about psychosocial moratorium – young people have permission i the world to screw up! It’s about the consequences, and about our responsibility to protect them from the consequences. As Nicola talked about earlier assessment can be the issue, the barrier to working with our students… But we work up to have more risky engagements.

Q2) I wondered if the bit that isn’t a bite, but isn’t not-a-bite is a kind of parody… That students kind of have to “fake it till they make it”

A2) I want my students play along, to engage in parody and metaphor and play with that, rather than it being tangental illustration, but engaging as if in the real world…

Q3) Especially from your examples, the ease you can find information on Google, that really is changing education. Information is now so easily found, you have to engage people in the process of learning, not of information transfer…

A3) I was very much struck by that example from Ross. That idea we have of working with facts… And that sometimes you don’t want the facts… Students must be capable of trying things they have never done before. And of wanting genuine engagement not just the answer to the problem, but the trajectory towards the solution… How do we set that up as the thing we are doing… Maybe we have to be more explicit about that… We can create tasks around finding stuff… But…  How many of us hate when, in a pub conversation, someone runs to the phone to find the answer to some name you can’t remember… For me I want that solution and I’ll grab the phone… But there some people want that chat, they don’t want the answer… It’s the voluntary espousal of unnecessary obstacles.

Q4) A comment and nice example… I read that meerkats remove the sting from scorpions and give it (the scorpions) to their young so that they can explore without being stung.

Comment) It is true… It’s the only animal, other than humans, that teach in stages… So they will give a scorpion without a sting and work up to the full scorpion…

Q5) Would you apply that need to fail to those teaching them…

A5) I think so, Jen and I have talked about the idea of “successful not-knowing”. Another Ross Galloway example… The student asks a question, with a new example… And he has a better example… So he works through that instead… And he goes wrong… he works back… the students comment from the side… and he moves on… And in his course feedback the students said “we liked it when you made a mistake, we really saw physics being done”. A few years ago at Networked Learning a peaker in favour of the lecture said it was an opportunity for students to see the lecturer “thinking on their feet”… That thinking on their feet is the key bit, the discussion, the extemporising… That’s where I feel comfortable – but others will not. But the risk is absolutely for them (the students), but we have to model that risk and they will respect it when they see it. So again Alan Murray would lose some of his dignity [in his playful approaches], but not respect… He was secure in his position.

And with that we moved out into further breakout sessions… 

Afternoon Break Out Sessions

  • Playful Learning Mini Maker Space – Michael Boyd)
  • 23 Things – Stephanie (Charlie) Farley
  • DIY Film School (Gear and Gadgets) – Stephen Donnelly
  • Gamifying Wikpedia – Ewan McAndrew
  • Near Future Teaching Vox Pops – Sian Bayne

To finish the day we have several more short presentations… 

Presentations (Chair: Ross Ward, Learning Technology Advisor (ISG Learning, Teaching & Web Services))

Learning to Code: A Playful Approach – Areti Manataki

I’m a senior researcher in the School of Informatics. And I’ve been quite active in teaching children how to programme both online and offline. My research is in AI, rather than education, so I’m here to share with you and to learn from you.

So Code Yourself! was a special programme that ran in both English and Spanish, organised by University of Edinburgh and University of Uraguay. The whole idea was to introduce programming to people with little or no experience of coding. We wanted to emphasise that it’s fun, it’s relevant to the real world. and anyone can have a go!

We covered the basics of algorithms and control structures, computational thinking, software engineering and programming in scratch. This was for young teenagers and set real challenges, with some structure, using scratch. And we included real life algorithms – like how to make a sandwich – and we had a strong visual elements thanks to the UoE MOOCs production team. And it was all about having fun, including building your own games of all types… Like hunting ghosts, or plants vs zombies…

The forum turns out to be a really important space in the MOOCs. We encouraged them to use the forums, to discuss, and we included tasks and discussions in the weekly emails… So we would say, go to the discussion boards to teach an alien how to brush his teeth Or draw and object and have people guess what it is about.

The course has been running a couple of years, our reach has been good… We have had over 110k participants and 2881 course completers. There are slightly more men than women. The age profile varies, though higher amongst young people than typical Coursera course. And older audiences enjoyed the programming. And we asked if they plan to programme again in the future, many plan to and that’s brilliant, that’s what I hoped for.

We’ve also been running coding workshops at the Edinburgh International Science Festival, having a go and trying to build their own game… We’ve had games with dinosaurs flying over cars! And they seem to enjoy it – and excitement levels are high! Many of these kids are familiar with scratch, but they liked the freedom to play.

And since the MOOC was working for adults, we’ve tweaked it and run the course for students and staff. Again, it came out as being fun!

We now want to reach out to more people. I actually do this in my own time, I’m passionate about it and want to reach young people, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, and teachers who can use this in the classroom!

Q&A

Q1) You commented that it was aimed at young people but also that Coursera’s audience aren’t really that young. Is the course running on demand? What’s the support?

A1) We first launched in March 2016 as a session. Then moved in August to monthly sessions, with learners encouraged to move to the next session if they haven’t completed. I was a bit scared when we moved to that phase in terms of support. But Coursera has launched the mentors scheme, where previous learners who enjoyed the course can get involved more actively on discussion boards. They do a fantastic job and learners are supported.

Q2) Is there a platform aimed at a younger audience?

A2) I’m not sure. The Uraguay university have experience in online teaching with youngsters and they designed their own platform – and it didn’t look that different. But I do think the style needs to be more appropriate.

Q3) You talked about working with younger audiences – who maybe encounter coding in schools, and your Coursera audiences and those young people’s parents may be seeing code from their kids or from professional contexts… Have you looked at teaching for an older audience who tend to be less digitally engaged in general?

A3) Yes, we did have some older MOOC takers… And they are amongst the most enthusiastic and they share their stories with us. We have done an online session with older people too and as long as you make them feel safe, and able to use the technology, that’s half the battle. When they are confident they are some of the most enthusiastic participants!

Enriched engagement with recorded lectures – John Lee

I’m going to talk about enriching recorded lectures and thinking about how we can enrich recordings with other content… This work is now turning into a PTAS project with colleagues in Informatics.

Rich media resources are increasingly recorded and created with the intention of using them for teaching and learning. And recorded lectures are perhaps most obvious example of such materials. We capture content, but an opportunity feels like it is being lost here, there is so much opportunity if we can integrate these into some new ecology of materials in an interesting way.

So, what’s the problem with doing that?  We have tools for online editing, annotation, linking to resources… These are not technically difficult to do… The literature captures lots of approaches and systems, and often positive experiences, but you don’t then seem to see people going on to use them in teaching and learning… And that includes me actually. Somehow it seems to be remarkably difficult… Perhaps interfaces are somehow not yet optimal for educational uses. If you look at YouTube’s editor… It works nicely… But not a natural thing to use or adapt to an educational context… Perhaps if we can design easier ways to present and interact with rich media, it can be more successful.

And maybe part of this is about making it more fun! It could be that doing this kind of work isn’t neccassarily playful… But working with these kinds of materials should be assisted by playful approaches. And one ways to do that is to bring in more diverse sources and resources, bringing in YouTube, Vimeo… Bringing in playful content… Perhaps we can also crowdsource more content creation, more content from students themselves… And build content creation hand in hand with content use… Designing learning activities that implicate and build on use and creation of rich media, like Lynda.com for instance..

So, I’ve been building a prototype based on APIs from various places, just built with Javascript. We have tried this out on a course called “Digital Playgrounds for the Online Public” (Denitsa Petrova). Students found it interesting and raised various issues… Again I’m following this tradition of trying things out, seeing it is interesting… But I now want to avoid the trap of not going any further with it… How? Partly by integrating with student projects – informatics and Digital Media students – to design ways to combine this media in new and different ways. Some real possibilities there…

Q&A

Q1) I really like this idea. I trialled an idea with new students around writing up lecture notes, uploading, sharing, upvoting, comments… A few students tried it and then it fell off exponentially. But one student kept it going all year – and apologised if he didn’t share his notes… But in future years no one did that… You are talking about taking up a lecture and scaling up and building on… But students sometimes want to go the other way… What else will you add for uptake.

A1) That’s a really good point. The ideas in our proposal tackle that head on. We want to design learning activities that produce and build on those recordings – by creating resources, linking content together… The idea if that you leave them to do it by themselves, they often won’t. But also if we structure it into the course itself, it becomes a learning process, and reflect on the course itself. So the lecture material may be used in a flipped classroom type of way… So they take from and work with the video, rather than just watch it. Sometimes we use pre-recorded content and that needs to be part of the picture too… Engagement is always more difficult… We want to foster engagement, and if we can do that the rest should fall into place.

DIY Filmschool and Media Hopper (MoJo) – Stephen Donnelly

I’m Stephen Donnelly and I work with the Media Team in LTW. I’ll talk about some of what we do…

The idea for the DIY Film School came from MoJo – the idea of Mobile Journalism… And how journalism is changing because of technology… The idea is that we are so used to seeing media on YouTube, filmed on a mobile phone… There’s no point commenting on production values when we see that. We are so used to seeing mobile footage used in broadcast. There are two reasons for this… The way we view media has changed, but also we now all have mobile devices. We all have a mobile phone… And broadcasters have figured that out. And most news stories now have a video element in there… So we wanted to help others to engage in that.

So, how did we get here…

I used to work with the BBC and we had gotten to the point where you sent our producers and cameramen… You probably take videos all the time and share them online… But you get to a professional context and everything changes… But you can shoot your own stuff. So we have purchased some inexpensive kit that works with your existing device – mics, rigs, lenses. And, in addition, we run a DIY film school. It teaches the basics of film making – that apply no matter what you use to film… Framing, being stable, how to zoom, lighting and shooting in appropriate light… And audio. People often forget about audio and actually, people tolerate bad video but you really need good audio… And how to be prepared when doing a shot.

So, after you’ve made your amazing films from DIY Film School where do you put it? Well we have MediaHopper… And you can do really cool stuff – store your content, share your content, etc.

I have a few examples of films made with the DIY film gear… So here we have a “how to” video for shooting an interview with two mobile cameras so that you can cut between the two shots – a simple interview set up. Another option here, a video on “Life after Cardiac Arrest” – they had commissioned out before, now shooting themselves, upskilling the team, and they make some really really nice stuff. And lastly is a video by Michael Seery who has students making videos – in this case how to use a UV-vis spectrophotometer. It’s all about the content and not about the technology.

Q&A

Q1) How much do those mobile rigs tend to cost?

A1) These are in the region of £100 for a steadycam rig… I could put a target on John, say, and it will follow him. It’s so cheap compared to what we would have purchased in the past. Nothing is more than ~£100 – you can buy lots rather than one camera. And you can loan out our rigs too. You guys have all the best content, it’s getting you guys to use it…

Q2) Have you

A2) We had a colleague working in archives, wanting to capture the process… They were doing it through pictures… and making their own videos has changed how they communicate their work… And MediaHopper has changed how academic colleagues are sharing their work in lots of ways, not just DIY Film School…

Q3) Great to see how easy things are now. One of the things that we are keen to do in the School of Education is adding captions. That’s easy on YouTube, how about in MediaHopper?

A3) We are running a pilot at the moment. Including manual and automated captions. The latter is easier but more hit and miss. Get in touch to get involved.

Closing Remarks – Prof. Sian Bayne, Moray House School of Education

Nicola and team asked me to close the content. The theme of the conference feels spot on at the end of a busy and exhausting year. Today has been a lovely reminder to bring playfulness into our everyday lives. Thank you to our fantastic speakers Nicola and Hamish, to colleagues who have presented, and run breakouts and posters all day!

Thank you to Nicola, this is her last conference as convener so huge thanks. Thank you to Ross Ward. To Charlie Farley. To Susan Greig. To Ruby Rennie. And also to Marshall Dozier. And a special thank you to Cinzia Pusceddu-Gangarosa who I know Sian also meant to thank in her talk. 

And I want to invite everyone left to come and drink wine and eat cheese as a very very informal leaving do for Hamish who is retiring. Thank you to everyone for everything, and for coming!

And with that we are done… And I’m off to drink wine and eat cheese… 

Aug 162016
 

This is a very belated posting of my liveblog notes from the eLearning@Ed/LTW Monthly Meet Up #4 on Learning Design which took place on 25th April 2016. You can find further information on the event, and all of our speakers’ slides, on the eLearning@ed wiki.

Despite the delay in posting these notes, the usual cautionary notes apply, and that all corrections, additions, etc. are very much welcomed. 

Becoming an ELDeR – Fiona Hale, Senior eLearning Advisor, IS

Unfortunately I missed capturing notes for the very beginning of Fiona’s talk but I did catch most of it. As context please be aware that she was talking about a significant and important piece of work on Learning Design, including a scoping report by Fiona, which has been taking place over the last year. My notes start as she addresses the preferred formats for learning design training… 

We found that two-day workshops provided space to think, to collaborate, and had the opportunity to both gain new knowledge and apply it on the same day. And also really useful for academic staff to understand the range of colleagues in the room, knowing who they could and should follow up with.

Scoping report recommended developing reusable and collaborative learning design as a new university services within IS, which positions the learning design framework as a scaffold, support staff as facilitators, etc.

There are many recommendations here but in particular I wanted to talk about the importance of workshops being team based and collaborative in approach – bringing together programme team, course team, admin, LT, peer, student, IAD, IS Support librarian, IS EDE, Facilitator, all in the room. Also part of staff development, reward and recognition – tying into UKSPF (HEA) and the Edinburgh Teaching Award. And ensuring this is am embedded process, with connection to processes, language, etc. with registry, board of studies, etc. And also with multiple facilitators.

I looked for frameworks and focused on three to evaluate. These tend to be theoretical, and don’t always work in practice. After trying those all out we found CAIeRO works best, focusing on designing learning experiences over development of content, structured format of the two day workshop. And it combines pedagogy, technology, learner experience.

We have developed the CAIeRO into a slightly different form, the ELDeR Framework, with the addition of assessment and feedback.

Finally! Theory and Practice – Ruth McQuillan, Co-Programme Director, Master of Public Health (online)

Prior to the new MPH programme I have been working in online learning since 2011. I am part of a bigger team – Christine Matthews is our learning technologist and we have others who have come on board for our new programme. Because we had a new programme launching we were very keen to be part of it. So I’m going to talk about how this worked, how we felt about it, etc.

We launched the online MPG in September 2015, which involved developing lots of new courses but also modifying lots of existing courses. And we have a lot of new staff so we wanted to give a sense of building a new team – as well as learning for ourselves how to do it all properly.

So, the stages of the workshop we went through should give you a sense of it. I’ve been on lots of courses and workshops where you learn about something but you don’t have the practical application. And then you have a course to prepare in practice, maybe without that support. So having both aspects together was really good and helpful.

The course we were designing was for mid career professionals from across the world. We were split into two teams – with each having a blend of the kinds of people Fiona talked about – programme team and colleagues from IS and elsewhere. We both developed programme and course mission statements as a group, then compared and happily those were quite close, we reached consensus and that really felt like we were pulling together as a team. And we also checked the course for consistency with the programme.

Next, we looked at the look and feel aspects. We used cards that were relevant for our course, using workshop cards and post it notes, rejecting non relevant cards, using our choice of the cards and some of our own additions.

So, Fiona talked about beginning with the end in mind, and we tried to do that. We started by thinking about what we wanted our students to be able to do at the end of the course. That is important as this is a professional course where we want to build skills and understanding. So, we wanted to focus on what they should know at the end of the course, and only then look at the knowledge they would need. And that was quite a different liberating approach.

And at this point we looked at the SCQF level descriptors to think about learning outcomes, the “On completion of this course you will be able to…” I’m not sure we’d appreciated the value and importance of our learning outcomes before, but actually in the end this was one of the most useful parts of the process. We looked for Sense (are they clear to the learner); Level (are they appropriate to the level of module); Accessibility (are they accessible).

And then we needed to think about assessment and alignment, looking at how we would assess the course, how this fitted into the bigger picture etc.

The next step was to storyboard the course. And by the end of Day One we had a five week course and a sixth week for assessment, we has learning outcomes and how they’d be addressed, assessment, learning activities, concerns, scaffolding. And we thought we’d done a great job! We came back on day two and when we came back we spend maybe half a day recapping, changing… Even if you can’t do a 2 day workshop at least try to do two half days with a big gap between/overnight as we found that space away very helpful.

And once finalised we built a prototype online. And we had a reality check from a critical friend, which was very helpful. We reviewed and adjusted and then made a really detailed action plan. That plan was really helpful.

Now, at the outside we were told that we could come into this process at any point. We had quite a significantly complete idea already and that helped us get real value from this process.

So, how did it feel and what did we learn? Well it was great to have a plan, to see the different areas coming together. The struggle was difficult but important, and it was excellent for team building. “To learn and not to do is really not to learn. To do and not to learn is really not to know. And actually at the end of the day we were really enthusiastic about the process and it was really good to see that process, to put theory into practice, and to do this all in a truly collaborative experience.

How has it changed us? Well we are putting all our new courses through this process. We want to put all our existing courses through this process. We involved more people in the process, in different roles and stages, including students where we can. And we have modified the structure.

Q&A

Q1) Did you go away to do this?

A1) Yes, we went to Dovecot Gallery on Infirmary Street.

A1 – FH) I had some money to do that but I wasn’t kidding that a new space and nice food is important. We are strict on you being there, or not. We expect full on participation. So for those going forward we are looking at rooms in other places – in Evolution House, or in Moray House, etc. Somewhere away from normal offices etc. It has to be a focused. And the value of that is huge, the time up front is really valuable.

A1 – RM) It is also really important for understanding what colleagues are doing, which helps ensure the coherence of the programme, and it is really beneficial to the programme.

Q2) Dow different do you think your design ended up if you hadn’t done this?

A2 – RM) I think one of my colleagues was saying today that she was gently nudged by colleagues to avoid mistakes or pitfalls, to not overload the course, to ensure coherence, etc. I think it’s completely different to how it would have been. And also there were resources and activities – lectures and materials – that could be shared where gaps were recognised.

A2 – FH) If this had been content driven it would be hard as a facilitator. But thinking about the structure, the needs, the learner experience, that can be done, with content and expertise already being brought into that process. It saves time in the long run.

A2 – RM) I know in the past when I’ve been designing courses you can find that you put activities in a particular place without purpose, to make sure there is an activity there… But this process helped keep things clear, coherent and to ensure any activity is clearly linked to a learning outcome, etc.

Q3) Once you’d created the learning outcomes, did you go back and change any of theme?

A3 – FH) On Day 2 there was something that wasn’t quite right…

A3 – RM) It was something too big for the course, and we needed to work that through. The course we were working on in February and that will run for the first time in the new academic year. But actually the UoE system dictates that learning outcomes should be published many months/more than a year in advance. So with new courses we did ask the board of studies if we could provide the learning outcomes to them later on, once defined. They were fine.

A3 – FH) That is a major change that we are working on. But not all departments run the same process or timetable.

A3 – RM) Luckily our board of studies were very open to this, it was great.

Q4) Was there any focus on student interaction and engagement in these process.

A4 – FH) It was part of those cards early in the process, it is part of the design work. And that stage of the cards, the consensus building, those are huge collaborative and valuable sessions.

Q5) And how did you support/require that?

A5 – FH) In that storyboard you will see various (yellow) post its showing assessment and feedback wove in across the course, ensuring the courses you design really do align with that wider University strategy.

Learning Design: Paying It Forward – Christina Matthews

There is a shift across the uni to richer approaches.

I’m going to talk about getting learning technologist involved and why that matters.

The LT can inform the process in useful and creative ways. They can bring insights into particular tools, affordances, and ways to afford or constrain the behaviours of students. They also have a feel for digital literacy of students, as well as being able to provide some continuity across the course in terms of approaches and tools. And having LT in the design process, academic staff can feel supported and better able to take risks and do new things. And the LT can help that nothing is lost between the design workshop, and the actual online course and implementation.

So, how are we paying this forward? Well we are planning learning design workshops for all our new courses for 2015-16 and 2016-17. We really did feel the benefits of 2 days but we didn’t think it was going to be feasible for all of our teams. We felt that we needed to adapt the workshop to fit into one day, so we will be running these as one day workshops and we have prioritised particular aspects to enable that.

The two day workshop format for CAIeRO follows several stages:

  • Stage 1: Course blueprint (mission, learning outcomes, assessment and feedback)
  • Stage 2: Storyboarding
  • Stage 3: Rapid prototyping in the VLE
  • Stage 4: Critical friend evaluation of VLE prototype
  • Stage 5: adjust and review from feedback
  • Stage 6: Creating an action plan
  • Stage 7: reflecting on the workshop in relation to the UK Professional Standards Framework.
  • For the one day workshop we felt the blue print (1), storyboard (2) and action plan stages (6) were essential. The prototyping can be done afterwards and separately, although it is a shame to do that of course.

So, we are reviewing and formalising our 1 day workshop model, which may be useful elsewhere. And we are using these approaches for all the courses on our programme, including new and existing courses. And we are very much looking forward to the ELDeR (Edinburgh Learning Design Roadmap).

Q&A

Q1) When you say “all” programmes, do you mean online or on-campus programmes?

A1) Initially the online courses but we have a campus programme that we really want to connect up, to make the courses more blended, so I think it will feed into our on campus courses. A lot of our online tutors teach both online and on campus, so that will also lead some feeding in here.

Q2) How many do you take to the workshop?

A2) You can have quite a few. We’ve had programme director, course leader, learning technologist, critical friends, etc.

A2 – FH) There are no observers in the room for workshops – lots are wanting to understand that. There are no observers in the room, you have to facilitate the learning objectives section very carefully. Too many people is not useful. Everyone has to be trusted, they have to be part of the process. You need a support librarian, the learning technologist has to squarely be part of the design, student, reality checker, QA… I’ve done at most 8 people. In terms of students you need to be able to open and raw…. So, is it OK to have students in the room… Some conversations being had may not be right for that co-creation type idea. Maybe alumni are better in some cases. Some schools don’t have their own learning technologist, so we bring one. Some don’t have a VLE, so we bring one they can play with.

A2 – CM) In the pilot there were 8 in some, but it didn’t feel like too many in the room.

Q3) As a learning technologist have the workshops helped your work?

A3 – CM) Yes, hugely. That action plan really maps out every stage very clearly. Things can come in last minute and all at the same time otherwise, so that is great. And when big things are agreed in the workshop, you can then focus on the details.

A3 – FH) We are trying to show how actually getting this all resolved up front actually saves money and time later on, as everything is agreed.

Q4) Thinking way ahead… People will do great things… So if we have the course all mapped out here, and well agreed, what happens when teams change – how do you capture and communicate this. Should you have a mini reprise of this to revisit it? How does it go over the long term?

A4 – FH) That’s really true. Also if technologist isn’t the one delivering it, that can also be helpful.

A4 – CM) One thing that comes out of this is a CAIeRO planner that can be edited and shared, but yes, maybe you revisit it for future staff…

A4 – FH) Something about ownership of activities, to give the person coming in and feel ownership. And see how it works before and afterwards. Pointing them to document, to output of storyboard, to get ownership. That’s key to facilitation too.

Q4) So, you can revisit activities etc. to achieve Learning outcome…

A4 – FH) That identification of learning outcomes are clear in the storyboards and documents.

Q5) How often do you meet and review programmes? Every 2 years, every 5 years?

A5 – FH) You should review every 5 years for PG.

Comment) We have an annual event, see what’s working and what isn’t and that is very very valuable and helpful. But that’s perhaps unusual.

A5 – FH) That’s the issue of last minute or isolated activities. This process is a good structure for looking at programme and course. Clearly programme has assessment across it so even though we are looking at the course here, it has that consistency. With any luck we can get this stuff embedded in board of studies etc.

A5 – RM) For us doing this process also changed us.

A5 – FH) That report is huge but the universities I looked at these processes are mandatory not optional. But mandatory can make things more about box ticking in some ways…

Learning Design: 6 Months on – Meredith Corey, School of Education 

We are developing a pilot UG course in GeoSciences and Education collaboration, Sustainability and Social Responsibility, running 2016/17. We are 2 online learning educators working from August 2015 to April 2016. This is the first online level 8 course for on-campus students. And there are plans to adapt the course for the wider community – including staff, alumni etc.

So in the three months before the CAIeRO session, we had started looking at existing resources, building a course team, investigating VLEs. The programme is on sustainability. We looked into types of resources and activities. And we had started drafting learning outcomes and topic storyboarding, with support from Louise Connelly who was (then) in IAD.

So the workshop was a 2 day event and we began with the blueprinting. We had similar ideas and very different ways to describe them so, what was very useful for us, was finding common language and ways to describe what we were doing. We didn’t drastically change our learning outcomes, but lots of debate about the wording. Trying to ensure the learning outcomes were appropriate for level 8 SCQF levels, trying not to overload them. And this whole process has helped us focus on our priorities, our vocabulary, the justification and clear purpose.

The remainder of the workshop was spent on storyboarding. We thought we were really organised in terms of content, videos, etc. But actually that storyboarding, after that discussion of priorities, was really useful. Our storyboard generated three huge A0 sheets to understand the content, the ways students would achieve the learning outcomes. It is an online course and there are things you don’t think about but need to consider – how do they navigate the course? How do they find what they need? How do they find what they need? And Fiona and colleagues were great for questioning and probing that.

We did some prototyping but didn’t have time for reality checks – but we have that process lined up for our pilot in the summer. We also took that storyboard and transferred that information to a huge Popplet that allowed us to look at how the feedback and feed forward fits into the course; how we could make that make sense across the course – it’s easy to miss that feedback and feed forward is too late when you are looking week by week.

The key CAIeRO benefits for us were around exploring priorities (and how these may differ for different cohorts); it challenged our assumptions; it formalised our process and this is useful for future projects; focused on all learners and their experience; and really helped us understand our purpose here. And coming soon we shall return to the Popplet to think about the wider community.

Q&A

Q1) I know with one course the head of school was concerned that an online programme might challenge the value of the face to face, or the concern of replacing the face to face course, and how that fits together.

A1) The hope with this course is that the strength is that it brings together students from as many different schools as possible, to really deal with timetabling barriers, to mix students between schools. It would be good if both exists to complement in each others.

A1 – FH) Its not intended as a replacement… In this course’s mission statement for this, it plays up interdisciplinary issues, and that includes use of OERs, reuse, etc. And talking about doing this stuff.

A1) And also the idea is to give students a great online learning experience that means they might go on and do online masters programmes. And hopefully include staff and alumni that also help that mix, that interdisciplinary thing.

Q2) Do you include student expectations in this course? What about student backgrounds?

A2) We have tried to ensure that tutorial groups play to student strengths and interests, making combinations across schools. We are trialling the course with evaluation through very specific questions.

A2 – FH) And there will assessment that asks students to place that learning into their own context, location, etc.

Course Design and your VLE – Ross Ward

I want to talk quickly about how you translate a storyboard into your VLE, in very general terms. Taking your big ideas and making them a course. One thing I like to talk about a lot is user experience – you only need one back experience in Learn or Moodle to really put you off. So you really need to think about ensuring the experience of the VLE and the experience of the course all need to fit together. How you manage or use your VLE is up to do. Once you know what you want to do, you can then pick your technology, fitting your needs. And you’ll need a mix of content, tools, activities, grades, feedback, guidance. If you are an ODL student how you structure that will be very very important, if blended it’s still important. You don’t need your VLE to be a filing cabinet, it can be much more. But it also doesn’t have to be a grand immersive environment, you need it to fit your needs appropriately. And the VLE experience should reflect the overall course experience.

When you have that idea of purpose, you hit the technology and you have kind of a blank canvas. It’s a bit Mona Lisa by numbers… The tools are there but there are easier ways to make your course better. The learning design idea of the storyboard and the user experience of the course context can be very helpful. That is really useful for ensuring students understand what they are doing, creating a digital version of your course, and understanding where you are right now as a student. Arguably a good VLE user experience is one where you could find what you are looking for without any prior knowledge of the course… We get many support calls from those simply looking for information. You may have some pre-requisite stuff, but you need to really make everything easy.

Navigation is key! You need menus. You need context links. You need suggested link. You want to minimise the number of clicks and complexity.

Remember that you should present your material for online, not like a textbook. Use sensible headings. Think about structure. And test it out – ask a colleague, as a student, ask LTW.

And think about consistency – that will help ensure that you can build familiarity with approach, consistently presenting your programme/school brand and look and feel, perhaps also template.

We know this is all important, and we want to provide more opportunity to support that, with examples and resources to draw upon!

Closing Fiona Hale

Huge thanks to Ross for organising today. Huge thanks to our speakers today!

If you are interested in this work do find me at the end, do come talk to me. We have workshops coming up – ELDeR workshop evaluations – and there we’ll talk about design challenges and concerns. That might be learning analytics – and thinking about pace and workshops. For all of these we are addressing particular design challenges – the workshop can concertina to that. There is no rule about how long things take – and whether one day or two days is the number, but sometimes one won’t be enough.

I would say for students it’s worth thinking about sharing the storyboards, the assessment and feedback and reasons for it, so that they understand it.

We go into service in June and July, with facilitators across the schools. Do email me with questions, to offer yourselves as facilitators.

Thank you to all of our University colleagues who took part in this really interesting session!

You can read much more about Edinburgh Learning Design roadmap – and read the full scoping report – on the University of Edinburgh Learning Design Service website

Jun 272016
 
This afternoon I’m at the eLearning@ed/LTW monthly Showcase and Network event, which this month focuses on Assessment and Feedback.
I am liveblogging these notes so, as usual, corrections and updates are welcomed. 
The wiki page for this event includes the agenda and will include any further notes etc.: https://www.wiki.ed.ac.uk/x/kc5uEg
Introduction and Updates, Robert Chmielewski (IS Learning, Teaching and Web)
Robert consults around the University on online assessment – and there is a lot of online assessment taking place. And this is an area that is supported by everybody. Students are interested in submitting and receiving feedback online, but we also have technologists who recognise the advantages of online assessment and feedback, and we have the University as a whole seeing the benefits around, e.g. clarity over meeting timelines for feedback. The last group here is the markers and they are more and more appreciative of the affordances of online assessment and feedback. So there are a lot of people who support this, but there are challenges too. So, today we have an event to share experiences across areas, across levels.
Before we kick off I wanted to welcome Celeste Houghton. Celeste: I an the new Head of Academic Development for Digital Education at the University, based at IAD, and I’m keen to meet people, to find out more about what is taking place. Do get in touch.
eSubmission and eFeedback in the College of Humanities and Social Science, Karen Howie (School of History, Classics & Archaeology)
This project started about 2-3 years back in February 2015. The College of Humanities and Social Sciences wants 100% electronic submission/feedback where “pedagogically appropriate” by 2016/17 academic year. Although I’m saying electronic submission/feedback the in-between marking part hasn’t been prescribed. The project board for this work includes myself, Robert and many others any of whom you are welcome to contact with any questions.
So, why do this? Well there is a lot of student demand for various reasons – legibility of comments; printing costs; enabling remote submission. For staff the benefits are ore debatable but they can include (as also reported by Jisc) increased efficiency, and convenience. Benefits for the institution (again as reported by Jisc) include measuring feedback response rates, and efficiencies that free up time for student support.
Now some parts of CHSS are already doing this at the moment. Social and Political Studies are using an in-house system. Law are using Grademark. And other schools have been running pilots, most of them with GradeMark, and these have been mostly successful. But we’ve had lots of interesting conversations around these technologies, around quality of assessment, about health and safety implications of staring at a screen more.
We have been developing a workflow and process for the college but we want this to be flexible to schools’ profiles – so we’ve adopted a modular approach that allows for handling of groups/tutors; declaration of own work; checking for non-submitters; marking sheets and rubrics; moderation, etc. And we are planning for the next year ahead, working closely with the Technology Enhanced Learning group in HSS. We are having some training – for markers it’s a mixture of in-School and is with College input/support; and for administrators by learning technologies in the school or through discussions with IS LTW EDE. To support that process we have screencasts and documentation currently in development. PebblePad isn’t part of this process, but will be.
To build confidence in the system we’re facing some myth busting etc. For instance, anonymity vs pastoral care issues – a receipt dropbox has been created; and we have an agreement with EUSA that we can deanonymise if identification is not provided. And we have also been looking at various other regulations etc. to ensure we are complying and/or interpreting them correctly.
So, those pilots have been running. We’ve found that depending on your preocesses the administration can be complex. Students have voiced concerns around “generic” feedback. Students were anxious – very anxious in some cases. It is much quicker for markers to get started with marking, as soon as the deadline has passed. But there are challenges though – including when networks go down, for instance there was an (unusual) DDOS attack during our pilots that impacted our timeline.
Feedback from students seems relatively good. 14 out of 36 felt quality of marking was better than on paper – but 10 said it was less good. 29 out of 36 said feedback was more legible. 10 felt they had received more feedback than noral, 11 less. 3 out of 36 would rather submit on paper, 31 would would rather submit online. In our first pilot with first year students around 10% didn’t look at feedback for essay, 36% didn’t look at tutorial feedback. In our second pilot about 10% didn’t look at either assignments submissions.
Markers reported finding the electronic marking easier, but some felt that the need to work on screen was challenging or less pleasant than marking on paper.
Q&A
Q1) The students who commented on less or more feedback than normal – what were they comparing to?
A1) To paper-based marking, which they would have had for other courses. So when we surveyed them they would have had some paper-based and some electronic feedback already.
Q2) A comment about handwriting and typing – I read a paper that said that on average people write around 4 times more words when typing than when hand writing. And in our practice we’ve found that too.
A2) It may also be student perceptions – looks like less but actually quite a lot of work. I was interested in students expectations that 8 days was a long time to turn around feedback.
Q2) I think that students need to understand how much care has been taken, and that that adds to how long these things take.
Q3) You pointed out that people were having some problems and concerns – like health and safety. You are hoping for 100% take up, and also that backdrop of the Turnitin updates… Are there future plans that will help us to move to 100%
A3) The health and safety thing came up again and again… But it’s maybe to do with how we cluster assignments. In terms of Turnitin there are updates but not all of those emerge rather slowly – there is a bit more competition now, and some frustration across the UK, so looking likely that there will be more positive developments.
Q4) It was interesting that idea that you can’t release some feedback until it is all ready… For us in the Business School we ended up releasing feedback when there was a delay.
A4) In our situation we had some marks ready in a few days, others not due for two weeks. A few days would be fair, a few weeks would be problematic. It’s an expectation management issue.
Comment) There is also a risk that is marking is incomplete or partially done it can cause students great distress…
Current assessment challenges, Dr. Neil Lent (Institute for Academic Development)
My focus is on assessment and feedback. Initially the expectation was that I’d be focused on how to do assessment and feedback “better”. And you can do that to an extent but… The main challenge we face is a cultural rather than a technical challenge. And I mean technical in the widest sense – technological, yes, but also technical in terms of process and approach. I also think we are talking about “cultures” rather than “culture” when we think about this.
So, why are we focussing on assessment and feedback? Well we have low NSS scores, low league table position and poor student experience reported around this area. Also issues of (un)timely feedback, low utility, and the idea that we are a research-led university and the balance of that and learning and teaching. Some of these areas are more myth than reality. I think as a university we now have an unambiguous focus on teaching and learning but whether that has entirely permeated our organisational culture is perhaps arguable. When you have competing time demands it is hard to do things properly, and the space to actually design better assessment and feedback.
So how do we handle this? Well is we look at the “Implementation Staircase” (Reynolds and Saunders 1987) we can see that it comes from senior management, then to colleges, to schools, to programmes, to courses, to students. Now you could go down that staircase or you can go back up… And that requires us to think about our relationships with students. Is this model dialogic? Maybe we need another model?
Activity theory (Engestrom 1999) is a model for a group like a programme team, or course cohort, etc. So we have a subject here – it’s all about the individual in the context of an object, the community, mediating tool, rules and conventions, division of labour. This is a classic activity theory idea, with modern cultural aspects included. So for us the subject might be the marker, the object the assignment, the mediating tool something like the technological tools or processes, rules and conventions may include the commitment to return marks within 2 weeks, division of labour could include colleagues and sharing of marking, community could be students. It’s just a way to conceptualise this stuff.
A cultural resolution would see culture as practice and discourse. Review and reflection need to be embedded and internalised way of life. We have multiple stakeholders here – not always the teacher or the marker. And we need a bit of risk taking – but that’s scary when we are thinking about risk taking. That can feel at odds with the need to perform at a high level but risk taking is needed. And we need best practice to share experience in events such as this.
So there are technical things we could do better, do right. But the challenge we face is more of a collective one. We need to create time and space to genuinely reflect on their teaching practice, to interact with that culture. But you don’t change practice overnight. And we have to think about our relationship with our students, and thinking about how we encourage and enable them to be part of the process, and building up their own picture of what good/bad work looks like. And then the subject, object, culture will be closer together. Sometimes real change comes from giving examples of what works, inspiring through those examples etc. Technological tools can make life easier, if you have the time to spend time to understand them and how to make them work for you.
Q&A
Q1) Not sure if it’s a question or comment or thought… But I’m wondering what we take from those NSS scores, and if that’s what we should work to or if we should think about assessment and feedback in a different kind of paradigm.
A1) When we think about processes we can kid ourselves that this is all linear, it’s cause and effect. It isn’t that simple… The other thing about concentrating on giving feedback on time, so they can make use of it. But when it comes to the NSS it commodifies feedback, which challenges the idea of feedback as dialogic. There are cultural challenges for this. And I think that’s where risk, and the potential for interesting surprises come in…
Q2) As a parent of a teenager I now wonder about personal resilience, to be able to look at things differently, especially when they don’t feel confident to move forwards. I feel that for staff and students a problem can arise and they panic, and want things resolved for them. I think we have to move past that by giving staff and students the resilience so that they can cope with change.
A2) My PhD was pretty much on that. I think some of this comes from the idea of relatively safe risk taking… That’s another kind of risk taking. As a sector we have to think that through. Giving marks for everything risks everything not feeling like a safe space.
Q3) Do we not need to make learning the focus.
A3) Schools and universities push that grades, outcomes really matter when actually we would say “no, the learning is what matters”, but that’s hard in the wider context in which the certificate in the hand is valued.
Comment) Maybe we need that distinction that Simon Riley talked about at this year’s eLearning@ed conference, of distinguishing between the task and the assignment. So you can fail the task but succeed that assignment (in that case referring to SLICCs and the idea that the task is the experience, the assignment is writing about it whether it went well or poorly).
Not captured in full here: a discussion around the nature of electronic submission, and students concern about failing at submitting their assignments or proof of learning… 
Assessment Literacy: technology as facilitator, Prof. Susan Rhind (Assistant Principal Assessment and Feedback)
I’m going to talk about assessment literacy, and about technology as a facilitator. I’m also going to talk about something I’m hoping you may be able to advise about.
So, what is assessment literacy? It is being talked about a lot in Higher Education at the moment. There is a book all about it (Price et al 2012) that talks about competencies and practices. For me what is most important is the idea of ensuring some practical aspects are in place, that students have an understanding of the nature, meaning and level of assessment standards, that they have skills in self and peer assessment. The idea is to narrow the gap between students and teaching staff. Sadler (1989,2010) and Bod and Molloy (2013) talk about students needing to understand the purpose of assessment and process of assessment. It means understanding assessment as a central part of curriculum design (Medland 2016, Gibbs and Dunbar-Goddet, 2009). We need assessment and feedback at the core, at the heart of our learning and teaching.
We also have to understand assessment in the context of quality of teaching and quality of assessment and feedback. For me there is a pyramid of quality (with programme at bottom, individual at top, course in the middle). When we talk about good quality feedback we have to conceptualise it, as Neil talked about, as a dialogic process. So there is individual feedback… But there is also course design and programme design in terms of assessment and feedback. No matter how good a marker is in giving feedback, it is much more effective when the programme design supports good quality feedback. In this model technology can be a facilitator. For instance I wanted to plug Fiona Hale’s Edinburgh Learning Design Roadmap (ELDeR) workshops and processes. This sort of approach lets us build for longer term improvement in these areas.
Again, thinking about feedback and assessment quality, and things that courses can do, we have a table here that compares different types of assessment, the minimum pre-assessment activity to ensure they have assessment literacy, and then enhancement examples. a minimum requirement for feedback and some exemplars for marking students work.
An example here would be work we’ve done at the Vet School around student use of Peerwise MCQs – here students pushed for use in 3rd year, and for revision at the end of the programme. By the way if you are interested in assessment literacy, or have experience to share, we now have a channel for Assessment and Feedback, and for Assessment Literacy on MediaHopper.
Coming back to that exemplars of students work… We run Learning to be an Examiner sessions which students could take part in, and which includes the opportunity to mark exemplars of students work. That leads to conversations, and exchange of opinions, to understand the reasons behind the marking. And I would add that any place we can bring the students and teaching staff closer together only benefits us and our NSS scores. The themes coming out of this work was that there was real empathy for staff, and quelling fears. Students also noted that as they took part, the better they understood the requirements, the less important feedback felt.
There have been some trials using ACJ (Adaptive Comparative Judgement), which is the idea that with enough samples of work you can use comparison to put work into an order or ranking. So you present staff several assignments and they can rank them. We ran this as an experiment as it provides a chance for students to see others’ work and compare to their own as well as others. We ran a survey after this experiment but students felt seeing others’ responses, and also to understand others’ approaches to comparison and marking.
So, my final point here is a call for help… As we think about what excites and encourages students I would like to find a Peerwise like system for free text type questions. Student feedback was good, but they wanted to do that for a lot more questions than just those we were able to set. So I would like to take Peerwise away from the MCQ context so that students could see and comment and engage with each others work. And I think that anything that brings students and staff closer together in their understanding is important.
Q&A
Q1) How do we approach this in a practical way. We’ve asked students to look at exemplar essays but we bump into problems doing them. It’s easy to persuade those who wrote good essays and have moved to later years, but it’s hard to find those with poorer.
A1) We were doing this with short questions, not long essays. Hazel Marzetti was encouraging sharing of essays and they were reluctant. I think there’s something around expectation management – creating the idea up front that work will be available for others… That one has to opt out rather than opt out. Or you can mock up essays but you lose that edge of it being the real thing.
Q2) On the idea of exemplars… How do we feel about getting students to do a piece of work, and then sharing that with others on, say, the same topic. You could pick a more tangental topic, but that risks being less relevant, that a good essay is properly authentic… But for others there is a risk of copying potential.
A2) I think that it’s about understanding risk and context. We don’t use the idea of “model answers” but instead “outline answers”. Some students do make that connection… But they are probably those with a high degree of assessment literacy who will do well anyway.
Q3) By showing good work, showing a good range with similar scores, but also when you show students exemplars you don’t just give out the work, you annotate it, point out what makes it good, features that make it notable… A way to inspire students and help them develop assessment literacy when judging others’ work.
And with that our main presentations have drawn to a close with a thank you for all our lovely speakers and contributors.  We are concluding with an Open Discussion on technology in Assessment and Feedback.
Susan: Yeah, I’m quite a fan of mandatory activities but which do not carry a mark. But I’d seriously think about not assigning marks for all feedback activities… 
Comment: But the students can respond with “if it’s so important, why doesn’t this carry credit?”
Susan: Well you can make it count. For instance our vet students have to have a portfolio, and are expected to discuss that annually. That has been zero credits before (now 10 credits) but still mandatory. Having said that our students are not as focused on marking in that way.
Comment: I don’t want to be the “ah, but…” person here… But what if a student fails that mandatory non marked work? What’s the make-up task?
Susan: For us we are able to find a suitable bespoke negotiated exercise for the very few students this applies to…
Comment: What about equity?
Susan: I think removing the mark actually removes that baggage from the argument… Because the important thing here is doing the right tasks for the professional world. I think we should be discussing this more in the future.  
And with that Robert is drawing the event to a close. The next eLearning@ed/LTW monthly meet up is in July, on 27th July and will be focused on the programme for attaining the CMALT accreditation.  
Jun 142016
 

This afternoon, in my eLearning@ed Convener hat, I’m at a seminar with Professor Gilly Salmon which is being co-hosted by eLearning@ed and the University’s Learning, Teaching and Web Services team and Fiona Hale, who introduced Gilly’s talk.

This is a liveblog so, as usual, comments, corrections, etc. are welcomed. 

I have an interesting job, I’m Pro Vice-Chancellor (Education Innovation) at the University of Western Australia in Perth. It’s a long way away but it had a lot of similarities to Edinburgh – it is a research intensive university, it is very selective, and it has a very beautiful location. It’s perpetual summer – so not like Edinburgh in that respect! Our winter is warmer than Edinburgh’s summer!

And we have some of the same challenges as Edinburgh around teaching. We were doing well but we were a little behind in understanding C21st students and where they were going. So, it’s about innovation – the application of new ideas, new ways to do things.  I’ll talk a bit about this, and my background is in pedagoguey. But I’ve also turned amateur

  • Those who wonder about what happened – what was that?
  • There are those who try to take us to a past gone by
  • And then there are those who actually try and create it – rather than predict it!

Predicting the future can make you look silly, but it’s better than just letting it happen to you. I won’t tell you the way things are, but try and give you a spark to start that dialogue.

So, first of all I’m going to invite you to take a bit of hindsight – if you don’t have that you are doomed to repeat history…

The University of Western Australia is about 100 years old – not as old as Edinburgh, but very very old for Australia. But my hindsight here is that we pretty much deliver a model that is 1000 years old. So I’m going to pull apart some of the components of higher education, and how those are changing. And you can chop education up into many different components… I’ve made an attempt but I hope you’ll take this and critique it and expand upon it. So I have divided it into:

  • Learning
  • Teaching
  • Academics
  • Graduate-ness
  • Learning Locations
  • Knowledge
  • Technology

So, what is Learning? Someone from the audience suggests learning from experience, learning from mistakes. There are neurological aspects. Someone from the audience talks about it being about making connections – in a literal but also information sense. Another: learning is adapting to environment, where you are, when you are. Another: behavioural change, and modify behaviour. We could go on… We don’t know all that much about learning, although these are all valid ways of thinking about this. It’s complex, adaptive, systems, cognitive, physiological, all kinds of approaches…

So, I’m distinguishing between Learning and Teaching. No-one mentioned teaching just now. Traditionally it is thought of as being about someone informing a learner. There is the traditional one to many face to face context, also the Oxford tutorial model which is more discursive. Audience member suggests: it’s traditionally patriarchal or matriarchal. That’s a knowledge based hierarchy. There are also aspects of technology. We have a rough idea of the role of the teacher…

What about the role of the Academic? Audience member: create and share new knowledge. To add to the corpus of knowledge – I would argue that that “share” is important so good to see that there. Audience member: reevaluating old knowledge. Another: to model behaviour in a particular space. Yes, whether professional or academic – applies to medics, lawyers etc.

What about the idea of “Graduateness”? It’s the idea of if you go through Higher Education, maybe even later, is there something different about you? Audience member: it’s a badge in a way. Another: it’s a way to speak to other people in a group perhaps. It’s about being able to be part of particular communities. Audience member: it’s also suggestive of behaviours having changed. Another: and a warranty of your skills. Another: can also enable social mobility. Sure, career or personal development. Another: part of your identity, of being part of that. Another: for particular disciplines there is specific knowledge, but there are the transferable skills, the critical thinking, research skills, technical skills. Another: it’s also about the ability to learn… In Biology students have the ability to get into a subject they didn’t do when they started. If you tell students that they aren’t interested but that is something they would recognise. Has that idea of Graduateness always been a thing? I think the badging certainly has.

So what about Learning Locations? Why are we here? Historically people travelled to university… I’m not sure if you’ve been to pre-modern university. I went to ruins of a 3000 year old unviersity in India and the structure was very familiar – you could almost see your own university in their library/scroll area, the refectory, the rooms… That model of the space, of living, working, spending time together. Anything else? Audience member: I was thinking of location almost as a brand, as why you would go to a particular place. Another: I think that there is a sense of normalised locations – that it is less distracting, it is a space where it is normal to focus and study amongst others like you. I think that’s really critical.  That’s an interesting idea – in Australia many students live at home and attend their nearest university so that’s fairly different from here.

What about knowledge? Historically there was a shift from belief towards knowledge, and the focus on “proper knowledge”… The whole idea of what is “valid knowledge” is very complex. Audience member: Different disciplines have very different ideas of what valid knowledge is. Yes, and that’s part of inducting you to that discipline.

I left technology until last… We’ve always had technologies – the abacus is a mobile technology! I love using technology, like wearables, in my own teaching. Technology isn’t new to higher education… It’s useful to remember as our students fret about Audience member: I think technology also ties into the Learning Locations, in that it’s the only space that you can access some things. 

You’ve all been doing some hindsight there… Some of these things feel unthinkable to change… And actually we can see this image of the University of Bologna in the 14th Century – you’ll have seen it before – which does look like a university lecture now, it’s very recognisable. In surfing you have the idea of the “seventh wave” – a wave that knocks you back, that changes everything, bigger, better, more powerful than what we’ve got. Most of us agree that movable type on the printing press (the Gutenberg press from around 1440) would be one of those. So, you need to look for the seventh wave things that will be the spark for a massive change.

So, we’ll look to where a lot of this has gotten to. So I’m going to start with the World Wide Web – developed around 25 years ago. Our students have never been in the world without it but many of us in this room will remember a world without it. And that has been a huge change, and has also changed the tools and challenges for the students. So we now need to think about creative and publishing aspects, information management, a thinking pedagogy (and learning journeys), learning environments (not lecture theature), web access, building a new paradigm, skills set for the 21st century…

So, lets have a look at those components we talked about, and think about where we might be in terms of Education 2.0… After the idea of Web 2.0. The technical part of the web didn’t change for Web 2.0, but the way it was used that change, hence adopting that rough idea here.

So, for example, learning is starting to change. We now know that informal learning is at least as important, if not more so, than formal learning experiences. Anyone who has held a newborn baby you can see that that baby is looking at everything you do. That’s how they listen and they learn. You just have to look at the literature in early education. So we really aren’t the only game in town when we are at University, there is so much more taking place. Students have always sat out on the grass in summer, only now are we really waking up to that.

And teaching, all of a sudden we’ve realised that peer encouragement, peer support, peer exchange, is important. And it doesn’t only have to be the teaching staff that do that. It might be teaching staff, but others too.

Academics, how many of you have started a research project, done it entirely on your own, and published it on their own. There must be some… But actually understanding, redefining knowledge has be to done as a team. The role of the academic is very much as a team leader. Years back when I moved from being a Senior Lecturer to my first chair I didn’t know exactly what that would mean. I had a professor emeritus as mentor who advised only that “you speak truth to power”, and that should be the only change. I’ve done a lot of that and always keep it in mind. You have to do a lot of that to innovate.

In terms of Graduateness…. Well the idea of licensing practice is much newer… We have moved from a graduation certificate as proxy for skills, to being much more about licensing for practice. And about the fact that those skills etc. need to be updated.

Learning Locations are also changing, from static spaces towards much more blended and flexible environments, often fully integrated. Every so often on campus I queue for the ATM and I ask students whats in their pockets – it’s my informal ATM survey – and the record so far was 19 devices on one student… But it’s rare to have fewer than 2 devices, often more. Students are constantly connected no matter what else they are doing. In our futures laboratory, where we look at new devices, technologies, approaches, we are looking to see where those devices might have learning and teaching possibilities.

Let’s see about Knowledge and what it is. For hindsight we had quite an academic view of knowledge, and around the transmission of knowledge. Audience member: we have more metadata about knowledge, to find knowledge. Another: isn’t that about finding knowledge – that it’s about understanding how to find knowledge, rather than having knowledge. Another: it’s not sufficient to be able to recite knowledge, but to be able to use and apply knowledge in their own field – hence discussion of whether exams are useful. Another: And anyone can have knowledge, not just academics. Another: it’s about volume too… And it’s about the ability to manage that, to interrogate it critically. In my area where I’m trying to change practice I have as many librarians and information specialists working with me as learning technologists. I think it’s a fascinating area, and we all need that insight as we create the future.

And what about Technology? I think we are at the point where technology is cautiously adopted. We need tools to manage that information but it is changing everything about the way that we gain information and knowledge. And those with true insight will see that almost every other sector, industry, area of the social world is transformed… And we are not at the forefront of that which is shocking. Audience: I think the way it has been cautiously adopted makes sense… There is choice and decisions to be made. There is a lot that can be done, and that has to be navigated… No matter what you pick, someone will think you are wrong. Another: there is a tension between individual and organisational choice. I agree, institutions have put huge investment in technologies to make them safe and accessible. Another: there is a tension between what the teacher gives out, and what the student uses… And student has preference there that doesn’t always align. Comment: I think that that cautiousness is about critical engagement with technology, and that is something that industry would sometimes do well to take note of. Not always… Another: And there are issues of accessibility, and that can. Comment: I think that some of that cautiousness is about the role of gatekeepers… Is cautiousness a good, critical, I’m not sure what sort of term. 

I am about innovation, and want my institution to be leading.. Comment: cautiously? Not particularly! Audience member: I think that many of our comments are about scale… About how you support work at scale. I see that. We are doing work at scale. Our futures observatory has 50 projects to see how technology impacts on teaching and learning, and in new technologies. Audience members: any insights into the winning technologies? I think that the leading edge virtual reality especially in medical teaching contexts, some of the robotics work, some of the 3D printing projects. We work with MIT and we have some big stuff… We’ve done a lot with holographics… But all they want to do is to put the teacher in front of the class…! But you just have to do stuff.

So, where do you think Edinburgh is? Audience member: I think it depends where you are here as we are a huge organisation… Some are way beyond “education 2.0”. Another: I think especially in postgraduate education. I won’t answer the question myself, but I want you to use this model as some sort of spark to have those conversations.

So… We are at “education 2.0” so what happens as we move to “education 3.0”? Well I think we already agree that learning is lifelong, that what we do here is a small part of the whole. As we live to 100/110, we will need to keep learning. And expectations are shifting with each generation. Teaching will have to change as a result, to be co-constructed and created. There is a kind of move towards co-constructed teaching. Our students go to Google so we have to ensure that they can interpret and understand the information they find. And we need not just to adopt and disseminate knowledge but to also be learning designers.

As we think about graduateness we have to be prepared for multiple futures. Australia has had a recent report on professions… Australia has a very strict immigration policy only accepting … the vast majority of non-professional jobs will be changed hugely, we have to enable students to be ready for that. And in terms of Learning Locations we need to enable our students, to blend in the right ways, to know how to put things together that support people in their purpose. And knowledge? We know it will be hugely available… It has to be available, contextualised, and reinvented. It’s a wider way of looking at things. And technology? It’s definitely going to be digital, definitely multimedia, definitely mobile, and definitely personal. And that will be hard in big undergraduate classes. The other thing that I’d put under education 3.0, following Tim Berners-Lee and web 3.0, it’s the coming of the semantic web… A different way to understand yourself and your role in the world.

So, I’ll leave you to invent education 4.0… But that’s 3.0. Do we all want to be part of this? (indications of things in the room is that we do).

If you want to look at what is coming… The NMC Horizon Report 2016 Higher Education edition are quite useful. They are built on a Delphi model, so it’s limited to what people already know, but you can look at these, look back at these. Right now we see near-term issues of Bring Your Own Device, Learning Analytics and Adaptive Learning; mid-term we see Augented and Virtual Reality, Maker Spaces, etc. You need to be aware of these if you want to make the future, rather than letting it happen to you.

So, what have I forgotten about? Audience member: I think the student perhaps, they are not fixed in space and time. Students now are very different from just five years – they are part of the c components really. For me, it’s embedded in what is already there, in learning etc. Audience member again: I think you could argue that that is an aspect you can’t control for…  Although I know I can’t control the other factors either! Another: I think there is the issue of globalisation, internationalisation, competition, and the many many ways in which our students are different from each other. It’s a change in the idea of cohorts – they aren’t neatly divided, they vary greatly. And they are more like consumers. Audience member: And that’s a big issue for the UK especially, of it being a market. Comment: And there is the issue of what the university is for, the motivations, the reasons for choosing that route rather than other options. Another: The role of Higher Education is changing – that is about consumers and catering to their needs… I think “service” is important because of that. Another: I think that when we look at scale the campus is very limiting… We no longer talk about a small proportion of learners at undergraduate level, but a large group for undergraduate, then post graduate and beyond… That is much more at scale.” That is the case that scale has increased, since the 1960s but also more recently… And in countries such as India there are vastly more people qualifying for higher education. I think many of these issues are very much where I see “education 4.0” sitting, and mobile sitting.

Comment: I don’t know where the role of teachers of students, and institutions and students sits, where support lies. I was wondering for a moment if you were talking about moral and ethical education… But you are thinking about the whole benefit. Comment: pastoral support really… That seems to have changing. My university has found that social media has entirely overtaken the counseling service (note: that is very much the case here). Audience member: there is also that issue of cost and travel, and the holistic experience of learning in context, which is important otherwise why would you be an international student given the cost. 

So, I am going to bring this to a close. You can have a copy of these slides of course, but also hopefully lots of sparks for ideas and discussions here too. Also you’ll find some references here as well.

May 122016
 
Participants networking over lunch at eLearning@ed

Last week I was delighted to be part of the team organising the annual eLearning@ed Conference 2016. The event is one of multiple events and activities run by and for the eLearning@ed Forum, a community of learning technologists, academics, and those working with learning technologies across the University of Edinburgh. I have been Convener of the group since last summer so this was my first conference in this role – usually I’m along as a punter. So, this liveblog is a little later than usual as I was rather busy on the day…

Before going into my notes I do also want to say a huge thank you to all who spoke at the event, all who attended, and an extra special thank you to the eLearning@ed Committee and Vlad, our support at IAD. I was really pleased with how the event went – and feedback has been good – and that is a testament to the wonderful community I have the privilege of working with all year round here at Edinburgh.

Note: Although I have had a chance to edit these notes they were taken live so just let me know if you spot any errors and I will be very happy to make any corrections. 

The day opened with a brief introduction from me. Obviously I didn’t blog this but it was a mixture of practical information, enthusiasm for our programme, and an introduction to our first speaker, Melissa Highton:

Connecting ISG projects for learning and teaching – Melissa Highton (@honeybhighton), Director: Learning, Teaching and Web (LTW), Information Services.

Today is about making connections. And I wanted to make some connections on work that we have been doing.

I was here last year and the year before, and sharing updates on what we’ve been doing. It’s been a very good year for LTW. It has been a very busy year for open, inspired by some of the student work seen last year. We have open.ed launched, the new open educational resources policies, we have had the OER conference, we have open media, we have had some very bold moves by the library. And a move to make digital images from the library are open by default. That offers opportunities for others, and for us.

Extract from the Online Learning Consortium's 2016 Infographic

Extract from the Online Learning Consortium’s 2016 Infographic (image copyright OLC 2016)

There is evidence – from the US (referencing the EdTech: a Catalyst for Success section of the Online Learning Consortium 2016 Infographic). with students reporting increased engagement with course materials, with professors, with fellow students. And there is also a strong interest in digital video. MediaHopper goes fully launched very soon, and we are taking a case to Knowledge Strategy Committee and Learning and Teaching Committee to invest further in lecture capture, which is heavily used and demanded. And we need to look at how we can use that content, how it is being used. One of the things that I was struck by at LAK, was the amount of research being done on the use of audio visual material, looking at how students learn from video, how they are used, how they are viewed. Analytics around effective video for learning is quite interesting – and we’ll be able to do much more with that when we have these better systems in place. And I’ve included an image of Grace Hopper, who we named MediaHopper after.

Melissa Highton speaking at eLearning@ed 2016

Melissa Highton speaking at eLearning@ed 2016

Talking of Learning Analytics I’m a great fan of the idea that if a thing is worth doing, it’s worth doing a 2×2 matrix. So this is the Learning Analytics Map of Activities, Research and Roll-out (LAMARR – a great mix of Hollywood screen icon, and the inventor of wifi!), and there are a whole range of activities taking place around the university in this area at the moment, and a huge amount of work in the wider sector.

We also are the only University in the UK with a Wikimedian in Residence. It is a place entirely curated by those with interest in the world, and there is a real digital literacy skill for our students, for us, in understanding how information is created and contested online, how it becomes part of the internet, and that’s something that is worth thinking about for our students. I have a picture here of Sophie Jex-Blake, she was part of the inspiration for our first Wikipedia Edit-a-thon on women in science. Our Wikimedian is with us for just one year, so do make use of him. He’s already worked on lots of events and work, he’s very busy, but if you want to talk to him about a possible event, or just about the work being done, or that you want to do.

Here for longer than one year we have Lynda.com, an online collection of training videos which the University has signed up to for 3 years, and will be available through your University login. Do go and explore it now, and you will have Edinburgh University access from September. The stuff that is in there, can be curated into playlists, via learn, usage etc.

So, Wikipedia for a year, Lynda.com for three years, MediaHopper here now, and open increasingly here.

Highlights from recent conferences held in Edinburgh, chaired by Marshall Dozier

Marshall: Conferences are such an opportunity to make a connection between each other, with the wider community, and we hope to fold those three big conferences that have been taking place back into our own practice.

OER16 Open Culture Conference – Lorna Campbell (@lornamcampbell), Open Education Resources Liaison for Open Scotland, LTW.

This was the 7th OER conference, and the first one to take place in Edinburgh. It was chaired by myself and Melissa Highton. Themes included Strategic advantage of open, creating a culture of openness and the reputational challenges of “open-washing”; converging and competing cultures of open knowledge, open source, open content, open practice, open data and open access; hacking, making and sharing; openness and public engagement?; and innovative practices in cultural heritage contexts, which I was particularly to see us get good engagement from.

There was originally a sense that OER would die out, but actually it is just getting bigger and bigger. This years OER conference was the biggest yet, and that’s because of support and investment from those who, like the University of Edinburgh, who see real value in openness. We had participants from across the world – 29 countries – despite being essentially a UK based conference. And we had around a 50/50 gender split – no all male panel here. There is no external funding around open education right now, so we had to charge but we did ensure free and open online participation for all – keynotes live-streamed to the ALT channel, we had Radio #EDUtalk @ OER16, with live streaming of keynotes, and interviews with participants and speakers from the conference – those recordings are hugely recommended; and we also had a busy and active Twitter channel. We had a strong Wikimedia presence at OER16, with editing training, demonstrations, and an ask a Wikimedian drop-in clinic, and people found real value in that.

Lorna Campbell speaking about OER16 at eLearning@ed 2016

Lorna Campbell speaking about OER16 at eLearning@ed 2016

We also had a wide range of keynotes and I’m just going to give a flavour of these. Our first was Catherine Cronin, National University of Ireland, Galway, who explored different definitions of openness, looking at issues of context and who may be excluded. We all negotiate risk when we are sharing, but negotiating that is important for hope, equality, and justice.

In the year of the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death we were delighted to have Shakespeare scholar Emma Smith, who had a fantastic title: Free Willy: Shakespeaker & OER. In her talk she suggested teaching is an open practice now, that “you have to get over yourself and let people see what you are doing”.

John Scally’s keynote talked about the National Library of Scotland’s bold open policy. The NLS’ road to openness has been tricky, with tensions around preservation and access. John argued that the library has to move towards equality, and that open was a big part of that.

Edupunk Jim Groom of Reclaim Hosting, has quite a reputation in the sector and he was giving his very first keynote in the UK. JIm turned our attention from open shared resources, and towards open tech infrastructure, working at individual scale, but making use of cloud, networked resources which he sees as central to sustainable OER practice.

The final keynote was from Melissa Highton, with her talk Open with Care. She outlined the vision and policy of UoE. One idea introduced by Melissa was “technical and copyright debt”, the costs of not doing licensing, etc. correctly in the first place. IT Directors and CIOs need to be persuaded of the need for investment in OER.

It is difficult to summarise such a diverse conference, but there is growing awareness that openness is a key aspect that underpins good practice. I wanted to quote Stuart Allen’s blog. Stuart is a student on the MSc in Digital Education. HE did a wonderful summary of the conference.

Next year’s conference has the theme of Open and Politics and will be co-chaired by Josie Frader and Alec Tartovsky, chair of CC in Poland (our first international co-chair).

Learning@Scale 2016 – Amy Woodgate, Project Manager – Distance Education Initiative (DEI) & MOOCs, LTW.

I am coming at this from a different perspective here, as participant rather than organiser. This conference is about the intersection between informatics approaches and education. And I was interested in the degree to which that was informed by informatics, and that really seems to flag a need to interrogate what we do in terms of learning analytics, educational approach. So my presentation is kind of a proposal…

We have understood pedagogy for hundreds of years, we have been doing a huge amount of work on digital pedagogy, and the MSc in Digital Education is leading in this area. We have environments for learning, and we have environments at scale, including MOOCs, which were very evident at L@S. At University of Edinburgh we have lots of digitally based learning environments: ODL; MOOCS; and the emergence of UG credit-bearing online courses. But there is much more opportunity to connect these things for research and application – bringing pedagogy and environments at scale.

The final keynote at L@S was from Ken Koedinger, at Carnegie Mellon University. He suggested that every learning space should be a learning lab. We shouldn’t just apply theory, but building, doing, providing evidence base, thinking as part of our practice. He talked about collecting data, testing that data, understanding how to use data for continuous improvement. We are a research led institution, we have amazing opportunities to blend those things. But perhaps we haven’t yet fully embraced that Design, Deploy, Data, Repeat model. And my hope is that we can do something together more. We’ve done MOOCs for four years now, and there are so many opportunities to use the data, to get messy in the space… We haven’t been doing that but no-one has been. What was hard about the conference for me was that lots of it was about descriptive stats – we can see that people have clicked a video, but not connecting that back to anything else. And what was interesting to me was the articulation into physical environments here – picking up your pen many times is not meaningful. And so many Learning Analytics data sources are what we can capture, not necessarily what is meaningful.

The keynote had us answer some questions, about knowing when students are learning. You can see when people view or like a video, but there is a very low correlation between liking and learning… And for me that was the most important point of the session. That was really the huge gap, more proactive research, engagement, for meaningful measures of learning – not just what we can measure.

Mike Sharples, OU was also a keynote at L@S, and he talked about learning at scale, and how we can bring pedagoguey into those spaces, and the intersection of diversity, opportunity and availability. One of the things FutureLearn is exploring is the notion of citizen inquiry – people bring own research initiatives (as students) and almost like kickstarter engage the community in those projects. Interesting to see what happens, but an interesting question of how we utilize the masses, the scale of these spaces. We need you as the community working with us to start questioning how we can get more out of these spaces. Mike’s idea was that we have to rethink our idea of effective pedagoguey, and of ensuring that that is sustainable as being a key idea.

Working backwards then, there were many many papers submitted, not all were accepted, but you can view the videos of keynotes on Media Hopper, and there were posters for those not able to present as well. The winner of the best paper was “1A Civic Mission of MOOCs” – which gave the idea that actually there was a true diversity of people engaged in political MOOCs, and they weren’t all trolly, there was a sense of “respectful disagreement”. There were a lot of papers that we can look at, but we can’t apply any of these findings that can be applied without critical reflection, but there is much that can be done there.

It was interesting Lorna’s comments about gender balance. At L@S there were great female speakers, but only 15% of the whole. That reflected the computer science angle and bias of the event, and there felt like there was a need for the humanities to be there – and I think that’s an aspiration for the next one, to submit more papers, and get those voices as part of the event.

Although perhaps a slightly messy summary of the event, I wanted to leave you with the idea that we should be using what we do here at Edinburgh, with what we have available here, to put out a really exciting diverse range of work for presenting at next year’s third L@S!

So, what do people think about that idea of hacking up our learning spaces more? Thinking more about integrating data analysis etc, and having more of a community of practice around online pedagogies for learning@scale.

Amy Woodgate speaking about Learning@Scale 2016

Amy Woodgate speaking about Learning@Scale at elearning@ed 2016

Q&A

Q1) I think that issue of measuring what we can measure is a real issue right now. My question here is about adapting approach for international students – they come in and play huge fees, and there are employers pushing for MOOCs instead… But then we still want that income… So how does that all work together.

A1) I don’t think learning at scale is the only way to do teaching and learning, but it is an important resource, and offers new and interesting ways of learning. I don’t feel that it would compromise that issue of international students. International students are our students, we are an international community on campus, embracing that diversity is important. It’s not about getting rid of the teacher… There is so much you can do with pedagogies online that are so exciting, so immersive… And there is more we can get out of this in the future. I find it quite awkward to address your point though… MOOCs are an experimentation space I think, for bringing back into core. That works for some things, and some types of content really work at scale – adaptive learning processes for instance – lots of work up front for students then to navigate through. But what do others think about using MOOCs on campus…

Comment, Tim) I think for me we can measure things, but that idea of how those actions actually relate to the things that are not measured… No matter how good your VLE, people will do things beyond it. And we have to figure out how we connect and understand how they connect.

Q2, Ruby) Thank you very much for that. I was just a little bit worried… I know we have to move away from simplistic description of this measure, means this thing. But on one slide there was an implication that measuring learning… can be measured through testing. And I don’t think that that that is neccassarily true or helpful. Liking CAN be learning. And there is a lot of complexity around test scores.

A2)  Yes, that chart was showing that viewing a particular video, hadn’t resulted in better learning uptake at the end of the course… But absolutely we do need to look at these things carefully…

Q3) At the recent BlackBoard conference there was the discussion of credit bearing MOOCs, is there any plan to do that now?

A3) This sometihng we can do of course, could take a MOOC into a credit bearing UG course, where the MOOC is about content. What becomes quite exciting is moving out and, say, the kind of thing MSc DE did with eLearning and Digital Cultures – making connections between the credit bearing module and the MOOC, in interesting and enriching ways. The future isn’t pushing students over to the MOOC, but taking learning from one space to another, and seeing how that can blend. Some interesting conversations around credit alliances, like a virtual Erasmus, around credit like summer school credit. But then we fall back of universities wanting to do exams, and we have a strong track record of online MScs not relying on written exams, but not all are as progressive right now.

Q4, Nigel) I’m in Informatics, and am involved in getting introductory machine learning course online, and one of the challenges I’m facing is understanding how students are engaging, how much. I can ask them what they liked… But it doesn’t tell me much. That’s one issue. But connecting up what’s known about digital learning and how you evaluate learning in the VLEs is good… The other thing is that there is a lot of data I’d like to get out of the VLE and which to my knowledge we can’t access that data… And we as data scientists don’t have access.

Comment, Anne-Marie Scott) We are still learning how to do that best but we do collect data and we are keen to see what we can do. Dragan will talk more about Learning Analytics but there is also a UoE group that you could get involved with.

Q5, Paul) That was fascinating, and I wish I’d been able to make it along… I was a bit puzzled about how we can use this stuff… It seems to me that we imagine almost a single student body out there… In any programme we have enthusiastic students desperate to learn, no matter what; in the middle we have the quite interested, may need more to stay engaged; and then there are people just there for the certificate who just want it easy. If we imagine we have to hit all of the audiences in one approach it won’t work. We are keen to have those super keen students. In medicine we have patient groups with no medical background or educational background, so motivated to learn about their own conditions… But then in other courses, we see students who want the certificate… I think that enormous spectrum give us enormous challenges.

A5) An interesting pilot in GeoSciences on Adaptive Learning, to try to address the interested and the struggling students. Maths and Physics do a lot with additional resources with external sites – e.g. MOOCs – in a curated list from academics, that augment core. Then students who just want the basics, for those that want to learn more… Interesting paper on cheating in MOOCs, did analysis on multiple accounts and IP addresses, and toggling between accounts… Got a harvester and master account, looked at clusters…. Master accounts with perfect learning… Harvesting were poorer, then the ones in the middle… The middle is the key part… That’s where energy should be in the MOOC.

Q6) I was intrigued by big data asset work, and getting more involved… What are tensions with making data openly available… Is it competition with other universities…

A6) That’s part of project with Dragan and Jeff Haywood have been leading on Learning Analytics data policy… MOOCs include personally identifiable data, can strip it, but requires work. University has desire to share data, but not there yet for easy to access framework to engage with data. To be part of that, it’s part of bigger Learning Analytics process.

LAK’16 Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference – Professor Dragan Gasevic (@dgasevic), Chair in Learning Analytics and Informatics, Moray House School of Education & School of Informatics

The Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference, LAK’16, took place in Edinburgh last week. It was in it’s sixth edition. It started in Canada as a response to several groups of people looking at data collected in different types of digital environments, and also the possibility to merge data from physical spaces, instruments, etc. It attracted a diverse range of people from educational research, machine learning, psychology, sociology, policy makers etc. In terms of organisation we had wonderful support from the wonderful Grace Lynch and two of my PhD students, who did a huge amount. I also had some wonderful support from Sian Bayne and Jeff Haywood in getting this set up! They helped connect us to others, within the University and throughout the conference. But there are many others I’d like to thank, including Amy and her team who streamed all four parallel sessions throughout the conference.

In terms of programme the conference has a research stream and a practitioner stream. Our chairs help ensure we have a great programme – and we have three chairs for each stream. They helped us ensure we had a good diversity of papers and audiences, and vendors. We have those streams to attract papers but we deliberately mix the practice and research sessions are combined and share sessions… And we did break all records this time. This was only the second conference outside North America, and most of our participants are based there, but we had almost double the submissions this year. These issues are increasingly important, and the conference is an opportunity to critically reflect on this issue. Many of our papers were very high in quality, and we had a great set of workshops proposed – selecting those was a big challenge and only 50% made it in… So, for non computer scientists the acceptance ratio maybe isn’t a big deal… But for computer scientists it is a crucial thing. So here’s we accepted about 30% of papers… Short papers were particularly competitive – this is because the field is maturing, and people want to see more mature work.

Dragan Gasevic speaking about LAK'16 at eLearning@ed 2016.

We had participants from 35 countries, across our 470 participants – 140 from the US, 120 from the UK, and then 40 from Australia. Per capita Australia was very well represented. But one thing that is a little disappointing is that other European countries only had 3 or 4 people along, that tells us something about institutional adoption of learning analytics, and research there. There are impressive learning analytics work taking place in China right now, but little from Africa. In South America there is one hub of activity that is very good.

Workshops wise the kinds of topics addressed included learning design and feedback at scale, learning analytics for workplace and professional learning – definitely a theme with lots of data being collected but often private and business confidential work but that’s a tension (EU sees analytics as public data), learning analytics across physical and digital spaces – using broader data and avoiding the “streetlight effect”, temporal learning analytics – trying to see how learning processes unfold… Students are not static black boxes… They change decisions, study strategies and approaches based on feedback etc; also had interesting workshop on IMS Caliper; we also had a huge theme and workshop on ethical and privacy issues; and another on learning analytics for learners; a focus on video, and on smart environments; also looking for opportunities for educational researchers to engage with data – through data mining skills sessions to open conversations with with informaticians. We also had a “Failathon” – to try ideas, talk about failed ideas.

We also had a hackathon with Jisc/Apero… They issues an Edinburgh Statement for learning analytics interoperability. Do take a look, add your name, to address the critical points…

I just want to highlight a few keynotes: Professor Mireilla Hildebrandt talked about the law and learning as a a machine, around privacy, data and bringing in issues including the right to be forgotten. The other keynote I wanted to talk about was Professor Paul A Kirshner on learning analytics and policy – a great talk. And final keynote was Robert Mislevy who talked about psychometric front of learning analytics.

Finally two more highlights, we picked two papers out as the best:

  • Privacy and analytics – it’s a DELICATE issue. A checklist for trusted learning analytics – Hendrik Drachsler and Wolfgang Greller.
  • When should we stop? Towards Universal approach – details of speakers TBC

More information on the website. And we have more meetings coming up – we had meetings around the conference… And have more coming up with a meeting with QAA on Monday, session with Blackboard on Tuesday, and public panel with George Siemens & Mark Milliron the same day.

Q&A

Q1) Higher Education is teaching, learning and research… This is all Learning Analytics… So do we have Teaching Analytics?

A1) Great point… Learning analytics is about learning, we shouldn’t be distracted by toys. We have to think about our methods, our teaching knowledge and research. learning analytics with pretty charts isn’t neccassarily helpful – sometimes event detrimental – t0 learners. We have to look at instructional designs, to support our instructors, to use learning analytics to understand the cues we get in physical environments. One size does not fit all!

Marshall) I set a challenge for next year – apply learning analytics to the conference itself!

Student-centred learning session, chaired by Ruby Rennie

EUSA: Using eLearning Tools to Support and Engage Record Numbers of Reps – Tanya Lubicz-Nawrocka (@TanyaLubiczNaw), Academic Engagement Coordinator, EUSA; Rachel Pratt, Academic Representation Assistant, EUSA; Charline Foch (@Woody_sol), EUSA, and Sophie McCallum,Academic Representation Assistant, EUSA.

Tanya opened the presentation with an introduction to what EUSA: the Edinburgh University Students Association is and does, emphasizing the independence of EUSA and its role in supporting students, and supporting student representatives… 

Rachel: We support around 2000 (2238) students across campus per year, growing every year (actually 1592 individuals – some are responsible for several courses), so we have a lot of people to support.

Sophie: Online training is a big deal, so we developed an online training portal within Learn. That allows us to support students on any campus, and our online learners. Students weren’t always sure about what was involved in the role, and so this course is about helping them to understand what their role is, how to engage etc. And in order to capture what they’ve learned we’ve been using Open Badges, for which over to Tanya…

Tanya Lubicz-Nawrocka speaking about EUSA's use of Learn and Open Badges at elearning@ed 2016

Tanya Lubicz-Nawrocka speaking about EUSA’s use of Learn and Open Badges at elearning@ed 2016

Tanya: I actually heard about open badges at this very conference a couple of years ago. These are flexible, free, digital accreditation. Thay are full of information (metadata) and can be shared and used elsewhere in the online world. These badges represent skills in key areas, Student Development badges (purple), Research and communication badges (pink) and ? (yellow).

Tanya shows the EUSA Open Badges at elearning@ed 2016

Tanya shows the EUSA Open Badges at elearning@ed 2016

There have been huge benefits of the badges. There are benefits for students in understanding all aspects of the role, encouraging them to reflect on and document their work and success – and those helped us share their success, to understand school level roles, and to understand what skills they are developing. And we are always looking for new ways to accredit and recognise the work of our student reps, who are all volunteers. It was a great way to recognise work in a digital way that can be used on LinkedIn profiles.

There were several ways to gain badges – many earned an open badge for online training (over 1000 earned); badges were earned for intermediate training – in person (113 earned); and badges were also earned by blogging about their successes and development (168 earned).

And the badges had a qualitative impact around their role and change management, better understanding their skills and relationships with their colleagues.

Sophie McCallum speaking about EUSA's work on training and Open Badges at elearning@ed 2016

Sophie McCallum speaking about EUSA’s work on training and Open Badges at elearning@ed 2016

Rachel: Looking at the learning points from this. In terms of using (Blackboard) Learn for online functionality… For all our modules to work the best they can, 500 users is the most we could. We have two Learn pages – one for CSE (College of Science & Engineering), one for CHSS (College of Humanities and Social Sciences), they are working but we might have to split them further for best functionality. We also had challenges with uploading/bulk uploading UUNs (the University personal identifiers) – one wrong UUN in several hundred, loses all. Information services helped us with that early on! We also found that surveys in Learn are anonymous – helpful for ungraded reflection really.

In terms of Open Badges the tie to an email address is a challenge. If earned under a student email address, it’s hard to port over to a personal email address. Not sure how to resolve that but aware of it. And we also found loading of badges from “Backpack” to sites like LinkedIn was a bit tedious – we’ll support that more next year to make that easier. And there are still unknown issues to be resolved, part of the Mozilla Open Badges environment more broadly. There isn’t huge support online yet, but hopefully those issues will be addressed by the bigger community.

Using eLearning tools have helped us to upscale, train and support record numbers of Reps in their roles; they have helped us have a strong positive quantitative and qualitative impact in engaging reps; and importance of having essential material and training online and optional, in-person intermediate training and events. And it’s definitely a system we’ll continue to have and develop over the coming years.

Rachel Pratt talks about EUSA's training approach, working with student representatives across the University, at elearning@ed 2016

Rachel Pratt talks about EUSA’s training approach, working with student representatives across the University, at elearning@ed 2016

Q&A

Q1) Have you had any new feedback from students about this new rep system… I was wondering if you have an idea of whether student data – as discussed earlier – is on the agenda for students?

A1 – Tanya) Students are very well aware of their data being collected and used, we are part of data analytics working groups across the university. It’s about how it is stored, shared, presented – especially the issue of how you present information when they are not doing well… Interested in those conversations about how data is used, but we are also working with reps, and things like the Smart Data Hacks to use data for new things – timetabling things for instance…

Q2) ?

A2) It’s a big deal to volunteer 50 hours of their time per year. They are keen to show that work to future employers etc.

Q3) As usual students and EUSA seem to be way ahead. How do you find out more about the badges?

A3) They can be clicked for more metadata – that’s embedded in it. Feedback has been great, and the blogposts have really helped them reflect on their work and share that.

SLICCs: Student-Led Individually Created Courses – Simon Riley, Senior Lecturer, MRC Centre for Reproductive Health

I’m Simon Riley, from the School of Medicine. I’m on secondment with the IAD and that’s why I’m on this. I’m coming to it from having worked on the student led component in medicine. You would think that medicine would be hugely confined by GMC requirements, but there is space there. But in Edinburgh there is about a year of the five year programme that is student led – spread across that time but very important.

Now, before speaking further I must acknowledge my colleague Gavin McCabe, Employability Consultant who has been so helpful in this process.

SLICCs are essentially a reflective framework, to explore skill acquisition, using an e-portfolio. We give students generic Learning Outcomes (LOs), which allow the students to make choices. Although it’s not clear how much students understand or engage with learning outcomes… We only get four or five per module. But those generic LOs allow students to immediately define their own aims and anticipated learning in their “proposal”. Students can take ownership of their own learning by choosing the LOs to address.

Simon Riley talks about SLICCs at eLearning@ed 2016

Simon Riley talks about SLICCs at eLearning@ed 2016

The other place that this can raise tensions is the idea of “academic rigor”. We are comfortable at assessing knowledge, and assessments that are knowledge based. And we assume they get those other graduate attributes by osmosis… I think we have to think carefully about how we look at that. Because the SLICCs are reflection on learning, I think there is real rigor there. But there has to be academic content – but it’s how they gain that knowledge. Tanya mentioned the Edinburgh Award – a reflective process that has some similarities but it is different as it is not for credit.

Throughout their learning experience students can make big mistakes, and recover from them. But if you get students to reflect early, and reflect on any issue that is raised, then they have the opportunity to earn from mistakes, to consider resilience, and helping them to understand their own process for making and dealing with mistakes.

The other concern that I get is “oh, that’s a lot of work for our staff”… I was involved in Pilot 1 and I discovered that when giving feedback I was referring students back to the LOs they selected, their brief, the rubric, the key feedback was about solving the problem themselves… It’s relatively light touch and gives ownership.

So, here are three LOs… Around Analysis, Application, Evaluation. This set is Level 8. I think you could give those to any student, and ask them to do some learning, based on that, and reflect on it… And that’s across the University, across colleges… And building links between the colleges and schools, to these LOs.

So, where are we at? We had a pilot with a small number of students. It was for extra credit, totally optional. They could conduct their own learning, capture in a portfolio, reflect upon it. And there is really tight link between the portfolio evidence, and the reflective assignment. It was a fascinating set of different experiences… For instance one student went and counter river dolphins in the Amazon, but many were not as exotic… We didn’t want to potentially exclude anyone or limit relevance. Any activity can have an academic element to it if structured and reflected upon appropriately. Those who went through the process… Students have come back to us who did these at Level 8 in second year (highest level senate has approved)… They liked the process – the tutor, the discipline, the framework, more than the credit.

So we have just over 100 students signed up this summer. But I’m excited about doing this in existing programmes and courses… What we’ve done is created SCQF LOs at Level 7, 8, 10 and 11, with resources to reflect, marking rubric, and board of studies documents. I am a course organiser – developing is great but often there isn’t time to do it… So what I’m trying to do is create all that material and then just let others take and reuse that… Add a little context and run onto it. But I want to hold onto the common LOs, as long as you do that we can work between each other… And those LOs include the three already shown, plus LO4 on “Talent” and LO5 on “Mindset”, both of which specifically address graduate attributes. We’ve had graduate attributes for years but they aren’t usually in our LOs, just implicit. In these case LOs are the graduate attributes.

Simon Riley gets very animated talking about Learning Outcomes at eLearning@ed 2016

Simon Riley gets very animated talking about Learning Outcomes at eLearning@ed 2016

What might they look like? Embedded in the curriculum, online and on campus. Level 11 on-campus courses are very interested, seems to fit with what they are trying to do. Well suited to projects, to skill acquisition, and using a portfolio is key – evidencing learning is a really useful step in getting engagement. And there is such potential for interdisciplinary work – e.g. Living Lab, Edinburgh CityScope. Summer schools also very interested – a chance for a student to take a holistic view of their learning over that period. We spend a lot of money sending students out to things – study abroad, summer schools, bursaries… When they go we get little back on what they have done. I think we need to use something like this for that sort of experience, that captures what they have learnt and reflected on.

Q&A

Q1) That idea of students needing to be able to fail successfully really chimes for me… Failures can be very damaging… I thought that the idea of embracing failure, and that kind of start up culture too which values amazing failure… Should/could failure be one of your attributes… to be an amazing failure…

A1) I think that’s LO5 – turning it into a talent. But I think you have touched on an important aspect of our experience. Students are risk averse, they don’t want to fail… But as reflective learners we know that failure matters, that’s when we learn, and this framework can help us address this. I look to people like Paul McC… You have students learning in labs… You can set things up so they fail and have to solve problems… Then they have to work out how to get there, that helps…

Q1) In the sporting world you have the idea of being able to crash the kit, to be able to learn – learning how to crash safely is an early stage skills – in skateboarding, surfing etc.

Keynote, supported by the Centre for Research in Digital Education: In search of connected learning: Exploring the pedagogy of the open web – Dr Laura Gogia MD, PhD, (@GoogleGuacamole)Research Fellow for the Division of Learning Innovation and Student Success at Virginia Commonwealth University, USA, chaired by Jen Ross

Jen: I am really delighted to welcome Laura Gogia to eLearning@ed – I heard her speak a year or so ago and I just felt that great thing where ideas just gel. Laura has just successfully defended her PhD. She is also @GoogleGuacamole on Twitter and organises a Twitter reading club. And her previous roles have been diverse, most interestingly she worked as an obstetrician.

Laura: Thank you so much for inviting me today. I have been watching Edinburgh all year long, it’s just such an exciting place. To have such big conferences this year, there is so much exciting digital education and digital pedagogy work going on, you guys are at the forefront.

So I’m going to talk about connected learning – a simpler title than originally in your programme – because that’s my PhD title… I tried to get every keyword in my PhD title!

Laura Gogia begins her keynote with great enthusiasm at eLearning@ed 2016

Laura Gogia begins her keynote with great enthusiasm at eLearning@ed 2016

Let me show you an image of my daughter looking at a globe here, that look on her face is her being totally absorbed. I look for that look to understand when she is engaged and interested. In the academic context we know that students who are motivated, who see real relevance and benefit to their own work makes for more successful approaches. Drawing on Montesorri and other progressive approaches, Mimi Ito and colleagues have developed a framework for connected learning that shapes those approaches for an online digital world.

Henry Jenkins and colleagues describe Digital Participatory Culture that is interactive, creative, about sharing/contributing and informal mentoring. So a connected teacher might design learning to particularly use those connections out to the wider world. George Siemens and colleagues talk about digital workflow, where we filter/aggregate; critique; remix; amplify – pushing our work out into a noisy world where we need to catch attention. Therefore connected learners and teachers find ways to embed these skills into learning and teaching experiences…

Now this all sounds good, but much of the literature is on K-12, so what does connected learning mean for Higher Education. Now in 2014 my institution embarked on an openly networked connected learning project, on learning experiences that draw from web structure and culture to (potentially) support connected learning and student agency, engagement and success. This is only 2 years in, it’s not about guaranteed success but I’ll be talking about some work and opportunities.

So, a quick overview of VCU, we have an interesting dynamic institution, with the top rated arts college, we have diverse students, a satellite campus in Quatar and it’s an interesting place to be. And we also have VCU RamPages, an unlimited resource for creating webpages, that can be networked and extended within and beyond the University. There are about 16k websites in the last year and a half. Many are student websites, blogs, and eportfolios. RamPages enable a range of experiences and expression but I’ll focus on one, Connected Courses.

Connected Courses are openly networked digital spaces, there are networked participatory activities – some in person, all taught by different teaching staff. And they generate authentic learning products, most of which are visible to the public. Students maintain their own blog sites – usually on RamPages but they can use existing sites if they want. When they enroll on a new course they know they will be blogging and doing so publicly. They use a tag, that is then aggregated and combined with other students posts…

So, this is an example of a standard (WordPress) RamPages blog… Students select the blog template, the header images, etc. Then she uses the appropriate tag for her course, which takes it to the course “Bloggregate”… And this is where the magic happens – facilitating the sharing, the commenting, and from a tutors point of view, the assessment.

Laura Gogia shows the VCA/RamPages

Laura Gogia shows the VCA/RamPages “Bloggregate” at eLearning@ed 2016

The openly networked structure supports student agency and discovery. Students retain control of their learning products during and after the course. And work from LaGuadia found students were more richly engaged in such networked environments. And students can be exposed to work and experience which they would not otherwise be exposed to – from different sites, from different institutions, from different levels, and from different courses.

Connected learning also facilitate networked participation, including collaboration and crowdsourcing, including social media. These tools support student agency – being interdependent and self regulated. They may encourage digital fluency. And they support authentic learning products – making joint contributions that leads to enriched work.

A few years ago the UCI bike race was in Virginia and the University, in place of classes, offered a credited course that encouraged them to attend the bike race and collect evidence and share their reflections through the particular lens of their chosen course option. These jointly painted a rich picture, they were combined into authentic work products. Similarly VCU Field Botany collaboratively  generate a digital field guide (the only one) to the James Richer Park System. This contributes back to the community. Similarly arts students are generating the RVArts site, on events, with students attending, reflecting, but also benefiting our community who share interest in these traditionally decentralised events.

Now almost all connected courses involve blogging, which develops multimodal composition for digital fluency and multiple perspectives. Students include images and video, but some lecturers are embedding digital multimodal composition in their tasks. Inspireed by DS106, University of Mary Washington, our #CuriousCoLab Creative Makes course asks students to process abstract course concepts and enhance their digital fluency. They make a concrete representation of the abstract concept – they put it in their blog with some explanation of why they have chosen to do this in their way. The students loved this… They spent more time, they thought more on these abstract ideas and concepts… They can struggle with those ideas… This course was fully online, with members of the public engaged too – and we saw both students and these external participants did the creative make, whether or not they did the reflective blogging (optional for outside participants).

In terms of final projects students are often asked to create a website. These assignments allow the students to work on topics that really talk to their heart… So, one module can generate projects on multitasking and the brain, another might talk about the impact on the bombing of Hiroshima.

I’ve talked about connected learning but now I’d like to turn to my research on student blogging and tweeting, and my focus on the idea that if students are engaged in Connected Learning we require the recognition and creation of connections with people, and across concepts, contexts and time. I focused on Blogging and tweeting as these are commonly used in connected learning… I asked myself about whether there was something about these practices that was special here. So I looked at how we can capture connected learning through student digital annotation… Looking at hyperlinks, mentions, etc. The things that express digital connection… Are they indicative of pedagogical connections too? I also looking at images and videos, and how students just use images in their blog posts…

Because the Twitter API and WordPress allow capture of digital annotations… You can capture those connections in order to describe engagement. So, for the class I looked at there were weekly Twitter chats… And others beyond the course were open participants, very lightly auditing the course… I wanted to see how they interacted… What I saw was that open students were very well integrated with the enrolled students, and interacting… And this has instructional value too. Instructors used a similar social network analysis tool to ask students to reflect on their learning and engagement.

Laura Gogia speaking about linking and interaction patterns at VCU as part of her eLearning@ed 2016 keynote

Laura Gogia speaking about linking and interaction patterns at VCU as part of her eLearning@ed 2016 keynote

Similarly I looked at psychology students and how they shared hyperlinks… You can see also how sources are found directly, and when they access them exclusively through their Twitter timeline… That was useful for discussing student practice with them – because those are two different processes really – whether reading fully, or finding through others’ sharing. And in a course where there is controversy over legitimate sources, you could have a conversation on what sources you are using and why.

I found students using hyperlinks to point to additional resources, traditional citations, embedded definitions, to connect their own work, but also to contextualise their posts – indicating a presumption of an external audience and of shaping content to them… And we saw different styles of linking. We didn’t see too many “For more info see…” blog posts pointing to eg NYT, CNN. What we saw more of was text like “Smith (2010) states that verbal and nonverbal communication an impact” – a traditional citation… But “Smith 2010” and “nonverbal” were both linked. One goes where you expect (the paper), the other is a kind of “embedded description” – linking to more information but not cluttering their style or main narrative. You couldn’t see that in a paper based essay. You might also see “As part of this course, I have created a framework and design structure for..”… “this course” links to the course – thinking about audience perhaps (more research needed) by talking about context; framework pointed to personal structure etc.

I also saw varying roles of images in blog posts: some were aesthetic, some were illustration, some as extension. Students making self-generated images and videos incorporated their discussion of that making process in their blog posts… I particularly enjoyed when students made their own images and videos.

Laura Gogia talks about the Twitter patterns and hyperlinking practices of her research participants in her eLearning@ed 2016 keynote

Laura Gogia talks about the Twitter patterns and hyperlinking practices of her research participants in her eLearning@ed 2016 keynote

In terms of Twitter, students tweeted differently than they blog. Now we know different platforms support different types of behaviours. What I noticed here was that students tweeted hyperlinks to contribute to the group, or to highlight their own work. So, hyperlink as contribution could be as simple as a link with the hashtag. Whilst others might say “<hyperlink> just confirms what was said by the speaker last week”… which is different. Or it might be, e.g. “@student might find this on financial aid interesting <hyperlink>, now that inclusion of a person name significantly increases the chances of engagement – significantly linked to 3+ replies.

And then we’d see hyperlinks as promotion, although we didn’t see many loading tweets with hashtags to target lots of communities.

So, my conclusions on Digital Annotations, is that these are nuanced areas for research and discussion. I found that students seldom mentioned peer efforts – and that’s a problem, we need to encourage that. There is a lack of targeted contribution – that can be ok and trigger serendipity, but not always. We have to help students and ourselves to navigate to ensure we get information to the right people. Also almost no images I looked at had proper attribution, and that’s a problem. We tell them to cite sources in the text, have to do that in the images too. And finally course design and instructor behaviour matters, students perform better when the structure works for them… So we have to find that sweet spot and train and support instructors accordingly.

I want to end with a quote from a VCU Undergraduate student. This was a listening tour, not a formal part of research, and I asked them how she learned, how they want to learn… And this student talked about the need for learning to be flexible, connected, portable. Does everyone need an open connected space? No, but some do, and these spaces have great affordances… We need to play more here, to stay relevant and engaged with that wider world, to creatively play with the idea of learning!

Q&A

Q1) It was fantastic to see all that student engagement there, it seems that they really enjoy that. I was wondering about information overload and how students and staff deal with that with all those blogs and tweets!

A1) A fabulous question! I would say that students either love or hate connected courses… They feel strongly. One reason for that is the ability to cope with information overload. The first time we ran these we were all learning, the second time we put in information about how to cope with that early on… Part of the reason for this courses is to actually help students cope with that, understand how to manage that. It’s a big deal but part of the experience. Have to own up front, why its important to deal with it, and then deal with it. From a Twitter perspective I’m in the process of persuading faculty to grade Twitter… That hasn’t happened yet… Previously been uncredited, or has been a credit for participation. I have problems with both models… With the no credit voluntary version you get some students who are really into it… And they get frustrated with those that don’t contribute. The participation is more structured… But also frustrating, for the same reasons that can be in class… So we are looking at social network analysis that we can do and embed in grading etc.

Comment – Simon Riley) Just to comment on overload… That’s half of what being a professional or an academic is. I’m a medic and if you search PubMed you get that immediately… Another part of that is dealing with uncertainty… And I agree that we have to embrace this, to show students a way through it… Maybe the lack of structure is where we want to be…

A2) Ironically the people with the least comfort with uncertainty and unstructured are faculty members – those open participants. They feel that they are missing things… They feel they should know it all, that they should absorb it at. This is where we are at. But I was at a digital experience conference where there were 100s of people, loads of parallel strands… There seems to be a need to see it all, do it all… We have to make a conscious effort at ALT Lab to just help people let it go… This may be the first time in history where we have to be fine that we can’t know it all, and we know that and are comfortable…

Q3) Do you explicitly ask students not to contribute to that overload?

A3) I’m not sure we’re mature enough in practice… I think we need to explain what we are doing and why, to help them develop that meta level of learning. I’m not sure how often that’s happening just now but that’s important.

Q4) You talked a lot about talking in the open web in social media. Given that the largest social networks are engaging in commercial activities, in political activities (e.g. Mark Zuckerberg in China), is that something students need to be aware of?

A4) Absolutely, that needs to be there, alongside understanding privacy, understanding attribution and copyright. We don’t use Facebook. We use WordPress for RamPages – have had no problems with that so far. But we haven’t had problems with Twitter either… It’s a good point that should go on the list…

Q5) Could you imagine connected courses for say Informatics or Mathematics…? What do they look like?

A5) Most of the math courses we have dealt with are applied mathematics. That’s probably as far as I could get without sitting with a subject expert – so give me 15 mins with you and I could tell you.

Q6) So, what is the role of faculty here in carefully selecting things for students which we think are high quality?

A6) The role is as it has ever been, to mark those things out as high quality…

Q6) There is a lot of stuff out there… Linking randomly won’t always find high quality content.

A6) Sure, this is not about linking randomly though, it’s about enabling students to identify content, so they understand high quality content, not just the list given, and that supports them in the future. Typically academic staff do curate content, but (depending on the programme), students also go out there to find quality materials, discussing reasons for choosing, helping them model and understand quality. It’s about intentionality… We are trying to get students to make those decisions intentionally.

Digital Education & Technology Enhanced Learning Panel Session, chaired by Victoria Dishon

Victoria: I am delighted to be able to chair this panel. We have some brilliant academic minds and I am very pleased to be able to introduce some of them to you.

Prof. Sian Bayne (@sbayne), Professor of Digital Education in the School of Education, and Assistant Principal, Digital Education

I have a slight identity crisis today! I am Sian Bayne and I’m Professor of Digital Education but I am also newly Assistant Principal, Digital Education. It’s an incredibly exciting area of work to take forward so I thought I’d talk a bit about digital education at Edinburgh and where we are now… We have reputation and leadership, 2600 PG online students, 67 programmes, 2m MOOC learners, and real strategic support in the University. It’s a good time to be here.

Sian Bayne speaking about her exciting new role, at eLearning@ed 2016

Sian Bayne speaking about her exciting new role, at eLearning@ed 2016

We also have a growing culture of teaching innovation in Schools and a strong understanding of the challenges of academic development for and with DE. Velda McCune, Depute Director of IAD, currently on research leave, talks about complex, multilateral and ever shifting conglomerations of learning.

I want to talk a bit about where things are going… Technology trends seem to be taking us in some particular directions…We have a range of future gazing reports and updates, but I’m not as sure that we have a strong body of students, of academics, of support with a vision for what we want digital education to look like here. We did have 2 years ago the Ed2020 trying to look at this. The Stanford 2025 study is also really interesting, with four big ideas emerging around undergraduate education – of the open loop university – why 4 years at a set age, why not 6 years across your lifetime; paced education – 6 years of personalised learning with approaches for discipline we’re embedded in and put HE in the world; Axis flip; purpose learning – coming to uni with a mission not a major… So it would be interesting to think of those ideas in this university.

UAL/LSE did a digital online hack event, Digital is not the future, to explore the idea of hacking the institution from the inside. Looking at shifting to active work. Also a great new MIT Future of Digital Education report too. And if you have any ideas for processes or approaches to take things forward, please do email or Twitter me…

Melissa Highton, Assistant Principal, Online Learning (@honeybhighton)

I am also having quite an identity crisis. Sian and I have inherited quite a broad range of activities from Jeff Haywood, and I have inherited many of the activities that he had as head of IS, particularly thinking about online learning in the institution, number of courses, number of learners, what success would look like, targets – and where they came from – get thrown about… Some are assumptions, some KPI, some reach targets, some pure fantasy! So I’ll be looking at that, with the other Assistant Principals and the teams in ISG.

Melissa Highton talks about her forthcoming new role, at eLearning@ed 2016

Melissa Highton talks about her forthcoming new role, at eLearning@ed 2016

What would success look like? That Edinburgh should be THE place to work if you want to work on Digital Education, that it is innovative, fund, and our practice must be research informed, research linked, research connected. Every educator should be able to choose a range of tools to work with, and have support and understanding of risk around that… Edinburgh would be a place that excellent practitioners come t0 – and stay. Our online students would give us high satisfaction ratings. And our on campus learners would see themselves continuing studies online – preferably with us, but maybe with others.

To do that there are a set of more procedural things that must be in place around efficiency, structures, processes, platforms, to allow you to do the teaching and learning activity that we need you to do to maintain our position as a leader in this area. We have to move away from dependence on central funding, and towards sustainable activity in their departments and schools. I know it’s sexy to spin stuff up locally, it’s got us far, but when we work at scale we need common schools, taking ideas from one part of the institution to others. But hopefully creating a better environment for doing the innovative things you need to do.

Prof. David Reay (@keelincurve); Chair in Carbon Management & Education Assistant Principal, Global Environment & Society

Last year at eLearning@ed I talked about the Sustainability and Social Responsibility course, and today I’ll talk about that, another programme and some other exciting work we are doing all around Global Change and Technology Enhanced Learning.

So with the Online MSc in Carbon Management we have that fun criteria! We had an on campus programme, and it went online with students across the world. We tried lots of things, tried lots of tools, and made all sorts of mistakes that we learned from. And it was great fun! One of my favourite students was joining the first Google Hangout from a bunker in Syria, during the war, and when she had connectivity issues for the course we had to find a tactic to be able to post content via USB to students with those issues.

David Reay speaks about the new Online

David Reay speaks about the new Online “Sustainability & Social Responsibility” MSc at eLearning@ed 2016

So that online course in Sustainability and Social Responsibility is something we’ve put through the new CAIRO process that Fiona Hale is leading on, doing that workshop was hugely useful for trying those ideas, making the mistakes early so we could address them in our design. And this will be live in the autumn, please do all take a look and take it.

And the final thing, which I’m very excited about, is an online “Disaster Risk Reduction” course, which we’ve always wanted to do. This is for post earthquake, post flooding, post fire type situations. We have enormous expertise in this area and we want to look at delivery format – maybe CPD for rescue workers, MOOCs for community, maybe Masters for city planners etc. So this is the next year, this is what I’ll speak about next year.

Prof. Chris Sangwin (@c_sangwin), Chair in Technology Enhanced Science Education, School of Mathematics

I’m new to Edinburgh, joined in July last year, and my interest is in automatic assessment, and specifically online assessment. Assessment is the cornerstone of education, it drives what people do, that is the action they undertake. I’ve been influenced by Kluger and DeNiki 1996 who found that “one third of feedback interventions decreased performance”. This study found that specific feedback on the task was effective, feedback that could be seen as a personal attack was not. Which makes sense, but we aren’t always honest about our failures.

Chris Sangwin talks about automated approaches to assessing mathematics, at eLearning@ed 2016

Chris Sangwin talks about automated approaches to assessing mathematics, at eLearning@ed 2016

So, I’ve developed an automatic assessment system for mathematics – for some but not all things – which uses the computer algebra system (CAS) Maxima, which generates random structured questions, gives feedback, accommodates multiple approaches, and provides feedback on the parts of the answer which does not address the question. This is a pragmatic tool, there are bigger ideas around adaptive learning but those are huge to scope, to build, to plan out. The idea is that we have a cold hard truth – we need time, we need things marking all the time and reliably, and that contrasts with the much bigger vision of what we want for our students for our education.

You can try it yourself here: http://stack.maths.ed.ac.uk/demo/ and I am happy to add you as a question setter if you would like. We hope it will be in Learn soon too.

Prof. Judy Hardy (@judyhardy), Professor of Physics Education, School of Physics and Astronomy.

I want to follow up my talk last year about what we need to focus on “awareness” knowledge, “how to” knowledge, and we need “principles” knowledge. Fewer than a quarter of people don’t modify approaches in their teaching – sometimes that is fine, sometimes it is not. So I want to talk about a few things we’ve done, one that worked, one that did not.

Judy Hardy talks about modifying teaching approaches, at eLearning@ed 2016

Judy Hardy talks about implementing changes in teaching approaches, at eLearning@ed 2016

We have used Peerwise testing, and use of that correlates with exam performance, even when controlling for other factors. We understand from our evidence how to make it work. We have to move from formative (recommended) to summative (which drives behaviour). We have to drive students ownership of this work.

We have also used ACJ – Adaptive Comparative Judgement – to get students to understand what quality looks like, to understand it in comparison to others. They are not bad at doing that… It looks quite good at face value. But when we dug in we found students making judgments on surface features… neatness, length, presence of diagram… We are not at all confident about their physics knowledge, and how they evidence that decision… For us the evidence wasn’t enough, it wasn’t aligned with what we were trying to do. There was very high administrative overheads… A detail that is easily overlooked. For a pilot its fine, to work every day that’s an issue.

Implementing change, we have to align the change with the principles – which may also mean challenge underlying beliefs about their teaching. It needs to be compatible with local, often complex, classroom context, and it takes time, and time to embed.

Victoria: A lot of what we do here does involve taking risk so it’s great to hear that comparison of risks that have worked, and those that are less successful.

Dr Michael Seery, Reader, Chemistry Education. (@seerymk)

Like Chris I joined last July… My background has been in biology education. One of the first projects I worked on was on taking one third of chemistry undergraduate lab reports (about 1200 reports_ and to manage and correct those for about 35 postgraduate demonstrators. Why? Well because it can be hard to do these reports, often inconsistent in format, to assess online and I wanted to seek clarity and consistency of feedback. And the other reason to move online was to reduce administrative burden.

Michael Seery speaks about moving to online learning (image also shows the previous offline administrative tools), at eLearning@ed 2016

Michael Seery speaks about moving to online learning (image also shows the previous offline administrative tools), at eLearning@ed 2016

So Turnitin (Grademark) was what I started looking at. But it requires a Start Date, Due Date, and End date. But our students don’t have those. Instead we needed to retrofit it a bit. So, students submitted to experimental Dropbox, demonstrators filtered submissions and corrected their lab reports, and mark and feedback returned immediately to students… But we had problems… No deadline possible so can’t track turnaround time/impose penalties; “live” correction visible by student, and risk of simultaneous marking. And the Section rubrics (bands of 20%) too broad – that generated a great deal of feedback, as you can imagine. BUT demonstrators were being very diligent about feedback – but that also confused students as minor points were mixed with major points.

So going forward we are using groups, students will submit by week so that due dates ad turnaround times clearer, use TurnItIn assessment by groups with post date, and grading forms all direct mark entry. But our challenge has been retrofitting technologies to the assessment and feedback issue, but that bigger issue needs discussion.

The format for this session is that each of our panel will give a 3-5 minute introductory presentation and we will then turn to discussion, both amongst the panel and with questions and comments from the audience.

Panel discussion/Q&A

Q1) Thank you for a really interesting range of really diverse presentations. My question is for Melissa, and it’s about continuity of connection… UG, online, maybe pre-arrival, returning as a lifelong learning… Can we keep our matriculation number email forever? We use it at the start but then it all gets complex on graduation… Why can’t we keep that as that consistent point of contact.

A1, Melissa) That sounds like a good idea.

Q2) We’ve had that discussion at Informatics, as students lose a lot of materials etc. by loss of that address. We think an @ed.ac.uk alias is probably the way, especially for those who carry on beyond undergraduate. It was always designed as a mapping tool. But also let them have their own space that they can move work into and out of. Think that should be University policy.

A2, Melissa) Sounds like a good idea too!

Q3) I was really pleased to hear assessment and feedback raised in a lot of these presentations. In my role as Vice Principal Assessment and Feedback I’m keen to understand how we can continue those conversations, how do we join these conversations up? What is the space here? We have teaching networks but what could we be missing?

A3, Michael) We all have agreed LOs but if you ask 10 different lab demonstrators they will have 10 different ideas of what that looks like that. I think assessment on a grade, feedback, but also feed forward is crucial here. Those structures seems like a sensible place.

A3, Judy) I think part of the problem is that teaching staff are so busy that it is really difficult  to do the work needed. I think we should be moving more towards formative assessment, that is very much an ideal, far from where we are in practice, but it’s what I would like to see.

Q4) A lot of you talked about time, time being an issue… One of the issues that students raise all of the time is about timeliness of feedback… Do you think digital tools offer a way to do this?

A4, Judy) For me, the answer is probably no. Almost all student work is handwritten for us… What we’d like to do is sit with a student to talk to them, to understand what is going on in their heads, how their ideas are formed. But time with 300 students is against us. So digital tools don’t help me… Except maybe Chris’ online assessment for mathematics.

A4, Chris) The idea of implementing the system I showed is to free up staff time for that sort of richer feedback, by tackling the limited range of work we can mark automatically. That is a limited range though and it diminishes as the subject progresses.

A4, David) We implemented online submission as default and it really helped with timings, NSS, etc. that really helped us. For some assessment that is hard, but it has helped for some.

A4, Michael) Students do really value that direct feedback from academic staff… You can automate some chemistry marking, but we need that human interaction in there too, that’s important.

A4, Sian) I want to raise a humanities orientated way of raising the time issue… For me time isn’t just about the timeline for feedback, but also exploring different kinds of temporality that you can do online. For our MSc in Digital Education we have students blog and their tutors engage in a long form engaged rich way throughout the course, feedback and assessment is much richer than just grading.

Q5) In terms of incorporation of international students here, they are here for one year only and that’s very short. Sometimes Chinese students meet a real clash of expectations around language proficiency, a communication gap between what assessment and feedback is, and what we practice. In terms of technology is there a formative model for feedback for students less familiar with this different academic culture, rather than leaving them confused for one semester and then start to understand.

A5, David) It’s such an important point. For all of our students there is a real challenge of understanding what feedback actually is, what it is for. A lot of good feedback isn’t badged properly and doesn’t show up in NSS. I love the idea of less assessment, and of the timing being thought through. So we don’t focus on summative assessment early on, before they know how to play the game.. I agree really.

A5, Judy) One thing we don’t make much use, is of exemplars. They can be very valuable. When I think about how we get expertise as markers, is because of trying to do it. Students don’t get that opportunity, you only see your own work. Exemplars can help there…

The panel listening to questions from the floor at eLearning@ed 2016

The panel listening to questions from the floor at eLearning@ed 2016

Q6) Maybe for the panel, maybe for Fiona… One thing to build in dialogue, and the importance of formative assessment… Are you seeing that in the course design workshops, use of CAIReO (blog post on this coming soon btw), whether you see a difference in the ways people assess….

A6, Fiona) We have queues of people wanting the workshop right now, they have challenges and issues to address and for some of them its assessment, for others its delivery or pace. But assessment is always part of that. It comes naturally out of storyboarding of learner activities. BUt we are not looking at development of content, we are talking about learning activity – that’s where it is different. Plenty to think about though…

Comment, Ross) Metaphor of a blank piece of paper is good. With learning technologies you can start out with that sense of not knowing what you want to achieve… I think exemplars help here too, sharing of ideas and examples. Days like today can be really helpful for seeing what others are doing, but then we go back to desks and have blank sheets of paper.

Q7) As more policies and initiatives appear in the institution, does it matter if we believe that learning is what the student does – rather than the teacher? I think my believe is that learning occurs in the mind of the learning… So technologies such as distance and digital learning can be a bit strange… Distance and digital teaching maybe makes more sense…

A7) I think that replacing terminology of “teaching” with terminology of “learning” has been taking place. Hesper talks about the problems of the “learnification of education”, when we do that we instrumentalise education. That ignores power structures and issues in many ways. My colleagues and I wrote a Manifesto for Teaching Online and we had some flack about that terminology but we thought that that was important.

Q8) Aspirationally there would be one to one dialogue with students… I agree that that is a good aspiration… And there is that possibility of continuity… But my question was to what extent past, present, and future physical spaces… And to what extent does that enable or challenge good learning or good teaching?

A8, Judy) We use technology in classrooms. First year classes are flipped – and the spaces aren’t very conducive to that. There are issues with that physical space. For group working there are great frustrations that can limit what we can do… In any case this is somewhat inevitable. In terms of online education, I probably have to hand to colleagues…

A8, David) For our institution we have big plans and real estate pressures already. When we are designing teaching spaces, as we are at KB right now, there is a danger of locking ourselves into an estate that is not future proof. And in terms of impinging on innovation, in terms of changing demands of students, that’s a real risk for us… So I suppose my solution to that is that when we do large estate planning, that we as educators and experts in technology do that work, do that horizon scanning, like Sian talked about, and that that feeds into physical space as well as pedagogy.

A8, Sian) For me I want leakier spaces – bringing co-presences into being between on campus and online students. Whole area of digital pedagogical exploration we could be playing with.

A8, Melissa) There is is a very good classroom design service within the Learning and Teaching spaces team in IS. But there is a lag between the spaces we have today, and getting kit in place for current/future needs. It’s an ongoing discussion. Particularly for new build spaces there is really interesting possibility around being thoughtful. I think we also have to think about shifting time and space… Lecture Capture allows changes, maybe we need fewer big lecture rooms… Does the teaching define the space, or the space that designs the teaching. Please do engage with the teams that are there to help.

A8, Michael) One thing that is a danger, is that we chase the next best thing… But those needs change. We need to think about the teaching experience, what is good enough, what is future-proof enough… And where the need is for flexibility.

Victoria: Thanks to all our panel!

eMarking Roll Out at Abertay – Carol Maxwell, Technology Enhanced Learning Support team Leader, Abertay University, chaired by Michael Seery

I am Carol Maxwell from Abertay University and I am based in the Technology Enhanced Learning support team. So, a wee bit about Abertay… We are a very small city centre university, with 4025 students (on campus) and 2091 in partner institutions. We are up 9 places to 86 in Complete University Guide (2017), And our NSS score for feedback turnaround went up by 12%, which we think has a lot to do with our eMarking roll out.

We have had lots of change – a new Principal and new Vice Chancellor in summer 2012. We have many new appointments, a new director of teaching and learning enhancement, and we’ve moved towards central services rather than local admin. We get involved in the PGCert programme, and all new members of staff have to go through that process. We have monthly seminars where we get around 70 people coming along. We have lots of online resources, support for HEA accreditation and lots of things taking place, to give you a flavour of what our team does.

Carol Maxwell talks about the work of the Abertay Teaching and Learning Enhancement Team, at eLearning@ed 2016

Carol Maxwell talks about the work of the Abertay Teaching and Learning Enhancement Team, at eLearning@ed 2016

So the ATLEF project was looking at supporting assessment and feedback practice with technology, this was when our team was part of information services, and that was intended to improve the University’s understanding and awareness of the potential benefits, challenges and barriers associated with a more systematic and strategic approach to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback, we wanted to accelerate staff awareness of technological tools for assessment.

So we did a baseline report on practice – we didn’t have tools there, and instead had to interrogate Blackboard data course by course… We found only 50% of those courses using online assessment were using Grademark to do this. We saw some using audio files, some used feedback in Grade Centre, some did tracked changes in Word, and we also saw lots of use of feedback in comments on eportfolios.

We only had 2% online exams. Feedback on that was mixed, and some was to do with how the actual user experience worked – difficulties in scrolling through documents in Blackboard for instance. Some students were concerned that taking exams at home would be distracting. There was also a perception that online exams were for benefit of teaching staff, rather than students.

So we had an idea of what was needed, and we wanted to also review sector practices. We found Ferrell 2013, and also the Heads of eLearning Forum Electronic Management of Assessment Survey Report 2013 we saw that the most common practice was e-submission as well as hard copy printed by student… But we wanted to move away from paper. So, we were involved in the Jisc Electronic Marking and Assessment project and cycle… And we were part of a think tank where we discussed issues such as retention and archiving of coursework, and in particular the importance of it being a University wide approach.

So we adopted a new Abertay Assessment Strategy. So for instance we now have week 7 as a feedback week. It isn’t for teaching, it is not a reading week, it is specifically for assessment and feedback. The biggest change for our staff was the need for return of coursework and feedback in 10 working days before week 13, and within 15 weeks thereafter, That was a big change. We had been trialing things for year, so we were ready to just go for it. But we had some challenges, we have a literal grading policy, A+, A, B+ etc. which is harder in these tools.

We had senior management, registry, secretariat, teaching staff, teaching and learning staff discussing and agreeing the policy document. We had EMA champions demonstrating current process, we generated loads of supporting materials to. So one of our champions delivered video feedback – albeit with some student feedback to him that he was a little dry, he took it on the chin. One academic uses feedback on PebblePad, we have a lecturer who uses questions a great deal in mathematics courses, letting students attempt questions and then move on after completion only. We also have students based in France who were sharing reflections and video content, and feedback to it alongside their expected work. And we have Turnitin/Grademark, of which the personalised feedback is most valuable. Another champion has been using discussion forums, where students can develop their ideas, see each others work etc. We also hold lots of roadshow events, and feedback from these have raised the issue of needing two screens to actually manage marking in these spaces.

Carol Maxwell talks about the support for staff in rolling out eMarking at Abertay, at eLearning@ed 2016

Carol Maxwell talks about the support for staff in rolling out eMarking at Abertay, at eLearning@ed 2016

The areas we had difficulty with here was around integration, with workarounds required for Turnitin with Blackboard Grade Centre and literal grading; Staff resistance – with roadshows helping’ Moderation – used 3 columns not 2 for marking; Anonymity; returning feedback to students raised some complexities faced. There has been some challenging work here but overall the response has been positive. Our new templates include all the help and support information for our templates to.

So, where to now… Carry on refining procedures and support, need on going training – especially new staff, Blackboard SITS Integration. More online exams (some online and some off site); digital literacy etc. And, in conclusion you need Senior Management support and a partnership approach with academic staff, students and support services required to make a step change in practice.

Q&A

Q1) I’m looking at your array of initiatives, but seeing that we do these things in pockets. The striking thing is how you got the staff on board… I wonder if we have staff on board, but not sure we have students on board… So what did you do to get the students on board?

A1) There was a separate project on feedback with the students, raising student awareness on what feedback was. The student association were an important part of that. Feedback week is intended to make feedback to students very visible and help them understand their importance… And the students all seem to be able to find their feedback online.

Q2, Michael) You made this look quite seamless across spaces, how do you roll this out effectively?

A2) We’ve been working with staff a long time, so individual staff do lots of good things… The same with assessment and feedback… It was just that we had those people there who had great things there… So like the thinking module there is a model with self-enroll wikis… You end up with examples all around. With the roll out of EMA the Principal was keen that we just do this stuff, we have already tested it. But Abertay is a small place, we have monthly meet ups with good attendance as that’s pretty much needed for PGCAP. But it’s easier to spread an idea, because we are quite small.

Q3) For that 10-15 day turnaround how do you measure it, and how do you handle exemptions?

A3) You can have exemptions but you have to start that process early, teams all know that they have to pitch in. But some academic staff have scaled assessment back to the appropriate required level.

At this point we broke for an extended break and poster session, some images of which are included below. 

Amy Burge and Laine Ruus show their posters during the eLearning@ed 2016 Poster Session

Amy Burge and Laine Ruus show their posters during the eLearning@ed 2016 Poster Session

 

Participants explore posters including Simon Fokt's Diversity Reading List poster at eLearning@ed 2016

Participants explore posters including Simon Fokt’s Diversity Reading List poster at eLearning@ed 2016

 

Ross Ward provides an informal LTW drop in session as part of the eLearning@ed 2016 Poster Session

Ross Ward provides an informal LTW drop in session as part of the eLearning@ed 2016 Poster Session

Taking this forward – Nicola Osborne

Again, I was up and chairing so notes are more minimal from these sessions… 

The best of ILW 2016 – Silje Graffer (@SiljeGrr), ILW/IAD

ILW is in its fifth year… We had over 263 events through the event, we reached over 2 million people via social media…

How did we get to this year? It has been amazing in the last few years… We wanted to see how we could reach the students and the staff in a better way that was more empowering for them. We went back to basics, we hired a service design company in Glasgow to engage people who had been involved in ILW before… In an event we called Open ILW… We wanted to put people first. We had 2 full time staff, 3 student staff, 20 school coordinators – to handle local arrangements – and created a kind of cool club of a network!

Silje Graffer talks about the Innovative Learning Week team, at eLearning@ed 2016

Silje Graffer talks about the Innovative Learning Week team, at eLearning@ed 2016

So we went back to the start… We wanted to provide clarity on the concept… We wanted to highlight innovation already taking place, that innovation doesn’t just happen once a year. And to retain that space to experiment.

We wanted to create a structure to support ideas. We turned feedback into a handbook for organisers. We had meet ups every month for organisers, around ideas, development, event design, sharing ideas, developing process… We also told more stories through social media and the website. We curated the programme around ideas in play. We wanted to focus on people making the events, who go through a valuable process, and have scope to apply that.

Silje Graffer talks about some of the highlight events from ILW16, at eLearning@ed 201g

Silje Graffer talks about some of the highlight events from ILW16, at eLearning@ed 201g

So I just wanted to flag some work on openness, there was a Wikipedia Editathon on the history of medicine, we had collaboration – looking at meaningful connections between different parts of the university, particularly looking at learners with autism which was really valuable. Creativity… This wasn’t digital education in itself, but the Board Game Jam was about creating games, all were openly licensed, and you can access and use those games in teaching, available from OER. A great example for getting hands dirty and how that translates into the digital. And iGEM Sandpit and Bio Hackathon, are taking ideas forward to a worldwide event. Smart Data Hack continued again, with more real challenges to meet. Prof Ewan Klein gas taken work forward in the new Data, Design and Society Course… And in the Celebratory mode, we had an online game called Edinburgh is Everywhere, exploring Edinburgh beyond the physical campus! And this was from a student. You can browse all the digital education events that ran on the website, and I can put you in touch with organisers.

Next year its happening again, redeveloped and imagined again.

Q1) Is it running again

A1) Yes! But we will be using some of the redesigning approaches again.

 

CMALT – what’s coming up – Susan Greig (@SusieGreig),

Are you certified… I am based in LTW and I’m really pleased to announce new support for achieving CMALT within the University. And I can say that I am certified!

CMALT is the Certified Member of ALT, it’s recommended for documenting and reflecting on your work, a way to keep pace with technology, it is certified by peers, update certification every three years. So, why did I do CMALT? When back when I put my portfolio forward in 2008 I actually wrote down my reasons – I hoped to plan for my future careers more effectively, the career path isn’t well definied and I was keen to see where this would take me. And looking back I don’t think that career path has become more clear… So still very useful to do.

Susan Greig talking about support for CMALT, at eLearning@ed 2016

Susan Greig talking about support for CMALT, at eLearning@ed 2016

So, to do CMALT you need to submit a portfolio. That is around five areas, operational issues; teaching, learning and/or assessment processes; the wider context; communication; and a specialist area. I did this as an individual submission, but there is also an option to do this together. And that is what we will be doing in Information Services. We will provide ongoing support and general cheer-leading, events which will be open to all, and regular short productive cohort meetings. There will also be regular writing retreats with IAD. So, my challenge to you is can we make the University of Edinburgh the organisation with the most accredited CMALT members in the UK?

If you are interested get in touch. Likely cohort start is August 2016… More presentations from alt 3rd june, showcase event there in july

Making Connections all year long: eLearning@ed Monthly meet ups – Ross Ward (@RossWoss), Educational Design

Today has been a lovely chance to  get to meet and network with peers… Over the last year in LTW  (Learning, Teaching and Web Services) we’ve looked at how we can raise awareness of how we can help people in different schools and colleges achieve what they are trying to do, and how we can support that… And as we’ve gone around we’ve tried to work with them to provide what is needed for their work, we’ve been running roadshows and workshops. Rather than focus on the technologies, we wanted to come from more of a learning and teaching perspective…Around themes of Interactive learning and teaching, assessment and feedback, open educational resources, shakers, makers and co-creators, and exploring spaces… From those conversations we’ve realised there is loads of amazing stuff coming on… And we wanted to share these more widely…

Ross Ward talks about recent elearning@ed/LTW Monthly MeetUps, at eLearning@ed 2016

Ross Ward talks about recent elearning@ed/LTW Monthly MeetUps, at eLearning@ed 2016

Luckily we have a great community already… And we have been working collaboratively between elearning@ed and learning, teaching and web services, and having once a month meetings on one of the themes, sharing experiences and good practices… A way to strengthen networks, a group to share with in physical and digital shared spaces… The aim is that they are open to anyone – academics, learning technologists, support teams… Multiple short presentations, including what is available right now, but not ignoring horizon scanning. It’s a space for discussion – long coffee break, and the pub afterwards. We have a 100% record of going to the pub… And try to encourage discussion afterwards…

So far we’ve looked at Using media in teaching (January); Open Education – including our Wikimedian in residence (February); Things we have/do – well received catch up (March); Learning Design – excellent session from Fiona (April). We put as much as we can on the wiki – notes and materials – and you’ll find upcoming events there too. Which includes: Assessment and Feedback – which will be lively if the sessions here are anything to go by (27th June); CMALT (27th July); Maker Space (August) – do share your ideas and thoughts here.

In the future we are trying to listen to community needs, to use online spaces for some, to stream, to move things around, to raise awareness of the event. All ideas and needs welcomed… Interesting to use new channels… These tend to be on themes so case by case possibilities…

The final part of our day was our wrap up by Prof. Charlie Jeffrey, who came to us fresh from Glasgow where he’d been commenting on the Scottish Parliamentary election results for the BBC… 

Wrap Up – Professor Charlie Jeffrey, Senior Vice Principal.

I’m conscious of being a bit of an imposter here as I’m wrapping up a conference that I have not been able to attend most of. And also of being a bit of an obstacle between you and the end of the day… But I want to join together a few things that colleagues and I have been working on… The unambiguous priority of teaching and learning at Edinburgh, and the work that you do. So, what is the unambiguous priority about? It’s about sharpening the focus of teaching and learning in this university. My hope is that we reach a point in the future that we prize our excellent reputation for learning and teaching as highly as we do our excellent reputation in research. And I’ve been working with a platoon of assistant principals looking at how best to structure these things. One thing to come out of this is the Teaching Matters website which Amy (Burge) so wonderfully edits. And I hope that that is part of that collegiate approach. And Ross, I think if we had blogs and shorter contributions for the website coming out of those meetings, that would be great…

Charlie Jeffrey gives the wrap up at eLearning@ed 2016

Charlie Jeffrey gives the wrap up at eLearning@ed 2016

I’m also conscious of talking of what we do now… And that what we do in the future will be different. And what we have to do is make sure we are fit for the future… Traditional teaching and learning is being transformed by Teaching and Learning… And I wouldn’t want us to be left behind. That’s a competitive advantage thing… But it is is also a pedagogical issues, to do the best we can with the available tools and technologies. I’m confident that we can do that… We have such a strong track record of DEIs, MOOCs, and what Lesley Yellowlees calls he “TESEy chairs”, the Centre of research in Digital Education, an ISG gripped in organisational priorities, and a strong community that helps us to be at the forefront of digital education. Over the last few weeks we’ve had three of the worlds best conferences in digital education, and that’s a brilliant place to be! And an awful lot of that is due to the animation and leadership of Jeff Haywood, who has now retired, and so we’ve asked Sian and Melissa to help ensure that we stay in that absolutely powerful leading position, no pressure whatsoever, but I am very confident that they will be well supported. It’s pretty rare within an organisation to get 90 people to make time to come together and share experience like you have today.

And with that the day was finished! A huge thank you again to all who were part of the event. If you were there – whether presenting or to participate in the poster session or just to listen, I would ask that you complete our feedback survey if you haven’t already. If you weren’t there but are interested in next year’s event or the eLearning@ed community in general, you’ll find lots of useful links below. Video of the event will also be online soon (via MediaHopper – I’ll add the link once it is all live) so anyone reading this should be able to re-watch sessions soon. 

Related Resources

More about eLearning@ed

If you are interested in learning more about the eLearning@ed Forum the best place to start is our wiki: http://elearningforum.ed.ac.uk/.

If you are based at Edinburgh University – whether staff or student – you can also sign up to the Forum’s mailing list where we share updates, news, events, etc.

You can also join us for our monthly meet ups, co-organised with the Learning, Teaching and Web Services team at Edinburgh University. More information on these and other forthcoming events can be found on our Events page. We are also happy to add others’ events to our calendar, and I send out a regular newsletter to the community which we are happy to publicise relevant events, reports, etc. to. If you have something you’d like to share with the eLearning@ed community do just get in touch.

You can also read about some of our previous and more recent eLearning@ed events here on my blog:

 

Feb 252016
 
Today we have our second eLearning@ed/LTW Showcase and Network event. I’m liveblogging so, as usual, corrections and updates are welcome. 
Jo Spiller is welcoming us along and introducing our first speaker…
Dr. Chris Harlow – “Using WordPress and Wikipedia in Undergraduate Medical & Honours Teaching: Creating outward facing OERs”
I’m just going to briefly tell you about some novel ways of teaching medical students and undergraduate biomedical students using WordPress and platforms like Wikipedia. So I will be talking about our use of WordPress websites in the MBChB curriculum. Then I’ll tell you about how we’ve used the same model in Reproductive Biology Honours. And then how we are using Wikipedia in Reproductive Biology courses.
We use WordPress websites in the MBChB curriculum during Year 2 student selected components. Students work in groups of 6 to 9 with a facilitator. They work with a provided WordPress template – the idea being that the focus is on the content rather than the look and feel. In the first semester the topics are chosen by the group’s facilitator. In semestor two the topics and facilitators are selected by the students.
So, looking at example websites you can see that the students have created rich websites, with content, appendices. It’s all produced online, marked online and assessed online. And once that has happened the sites are made available on the web as open educational resources that anyone can explore and use here: http://studentblogs.med.ed.ac.uk/
The students don’t have any problem at all building these websites and they create these wonderful resources that others can use.
In terms of assessing these resources there is a 50% group mark on the website by an independent marker, a 25% group mark on the website from a facilitator, and (at the students request) a 25% individual mark on student performance and contribution which is also given by the facilitator.
In terms of how we have used this model with Reproductive Biology Honours it is a similar idea. We have 4-6 students per group. This work counts for 30% of their Semester 1 course “Reproductive Systems” marks, and assessment is along the same lines as the MBChB. Again, we can view examples here (e.g. “The Quest for Artificial Gametes”. Worth noting that there is a maximum word count of 6000 words (excluding Appendices).
So, now onto the Wikipedia idea. This was something which Mark Wetton encouraged me to do. Students are often told not to use or rely on Wikipedia but, speaking a biomedical scientist, I use it all the time. You have to use it judiciously but it can be an invaluable tool for engaging with unfamiliar terminology or concepts.
The context for the Wikipedia work is that we have 29 Reproductive Biology Honours stduents (50% Biomedical Sciences, 50% intercalculating medics), and they are split into groups of 4-5 students/groups. We did this in Semester 1, week 1, as part of the core “Research Skills in Reproductive Biology”. And we benefited from expert staff including two Wikipedians in Residence (at different Scottish organisations), a librarian, and a learning, teaching and web colleague.
So the students had an introdution to Wikipedia, then some literature searching examples. We went on to groupwprl sesssions to find papers on particular topics, looking for differences in definitions, spellings, terminology. We discussed findings. This led onto groupwork where each group defined their own aspect to research. And from there they looked to create Wikipedia edits/pages.
The groups really valued trying out different library resources and search engines, and seeing the varying content that was returned by them.
The students then, in the following week, developed their Wikipedia editing skills so that they could combine their work into a new page for Neuroangiogenesis. Getting that online in an afternoon was increadibly exciting. And actually that page was high in the search rankings immediately. Looking at the traffic statistics that page seemed to be getting 3 hits per day – a lot more reads than the papers I’ve published!
So, we will run the exercise again with our new students. I’ve already identified some terms which are not already out there on Wikipedia. This time we’ll be looking to add to or improve High Grade Serious Carcinoma, and Fetal Programming. But we have further terms that need more work.
Q&A
Q1) Did anyone edit the page after the students were finished?
A1) A number of small corrections and one querying of whether a PhD thesis was a suitable reference – whether a primary or secondary reference. What needs done more than anything else is building more links into that page from other pages.
Q2) With the WordPress blogs you presumably want some QA as these are becoming OERs. What would happen if a project got, say, a low C.
A2) Happily that hasn’t happened yet. That would be down to the tutor I think… But I think people would be quite forgiving of undergraduate work, which it is clearly presented at.
Q3) Did you consider peer marking?
A3) An interesting question. Students are concerned that there are peers in their groups who do not contribute equally, or let peers carry them.
Comment) There is a tool called PeerAim where peer input weights the marks of students.
Q3) Do all of those blog projects have the same model? I’m sure I saw something on peer marking?
A3) There is peer feedback but not peer marking at present.
Dr. Anouk Lang – “Structuring Data in the Humanities Classroom: Mapping literary texts using open geodata”
I am a digital humanities scholar in the school of Languages and Linguistics. One of the courses I teach is digital humanities for literature, which is a lovely class and I’m going to talk about projects in that course.
The first MSc project the students looked at was to explore Robert Louis Stevenson’s The Dynamiter. Although we were mapping the texts but the key aim was to understand who wrote what part of the text.
So the reason we use mapping in this course is because these are brilliant analytical students but they are not used to working with structured data, and this is an opportunity to do this. So, using CartoDB – a brilliant tool that will draw data from Google Sheets – they needed to identify locations in the text but I also asked students to give texts an “emotion rating”. That is a rating of intensity of emotion based on the work of Ian Gregory – spatial historian who has worked with Lakes data on the emotional intensity of these texts.
So, the students build this database by hand. And then loaded into CartoDB you get all sorts of nice ways to visualise the data. So, looking at a map of London you can see where the story occurs. The Dynamiter is a very weird text with a central story in London but side stories about the planting of bombs, which is kind of played as comedy. The view I’m showing here is a heatmap. So for this text you can see the scope of the text. Robert Louis Stevenson was British, but his wife was American, and you see that this book brings in American references, including unexpected places like Utah.
So, within CartoDB you can try different ways to display your data. You can view a “Torque Map” that shows chronology of mentions – for this text, which is a short story, that isn’t the most helpful perhaps.
Now we do get issues of anachronisms. OpenStreetMap – on which CartoDB is based – is a contemporary map and the geography and locations on the map changes over time. And so another open data source was hugely useful in this project. Over at the National Library of Scotland there is a wonderful maps librarian called Chris Fleet who has made huge numbers of historical maps available not only as scanned images but as map tiles through a Historical Open Maps API, so you can zoom into detailed historical maps. That means that mapping a text from, say, the late 19th Century, it’s incredibly useful to view a contemporaneous map with the text.
You can view the Robert Louis Stevenson map here: http://edin.ac/20ooW0s.
So, moving to this year’s project… We have been looking at Jean Rhys. Rhys was a white Creole born in the Dominican Republic who lived mainly in Europe. She is a really located author with place important to her work. For this project, rather than hand coding texts, I used the wonderful wonderful Edinburgh Geoparser (https://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/software/geoparser/??) – a tool I recommend and a new version is imminent from Clare Grover and colleagues in LTG, Informatics.
So, the Geoparser goes through the text and picks out text that looks like places, then tells you which it things is the most likely location for that place – based on aspects like nearby words in the text etc. That produces XML and Clare has created me an XSLT Stylesheet, so all the students have had to do is to manually clean up that data. The GeoParser gives you GeoNames reference that enables you to check latitude and longitude. Now this sort of data cleaning, the concept of gazeteers, these are bread and butter tools of the digital humanities. These are tools which are very unfamiliar to many of us working in the humanities. This is open, shared, and the opposite of the scholar secretly working in the librarian.
We do websites in class to benefit from that publicness – and the meaning of public scholarship. When students are doing work in public they really rise to the challenge. They know it will connect to their real world identities. I insist students sow their name, their information, their image because this is part of their digital scholarly identities. I want people who Google them to find this lovely site with it’s scholarship.
So, for our Jean Rhys work I will show you a mock up preview of our data. One of the great things about visualising your data in these ways is that you can spot errors in your data. So, for instance, checking a point in Canada we see that the Geoparser has picked Halifax Nova Scotia when the text indicates Halifax in England. When I raised this issue in class today the student got a wee bit embarrassed and made immediate changes… Which again is kind of perk of work in public.
Next week my students will be trying out QGIS  with Tom Armitage of EDINA, that’s a full on GIS system so that will be really exciting.
For me there are real pedagogical benefits of these tools. Students have to really think hard about structuring their data, which is really important. As humanists we have to put our data in our work into computational form. Taking this kind of class means they are more questioning of data, of what it means, of what accuracy is. They are critically engaged with data and they are prepared to collaborate in a gentle kind of way. They also get to think about place in a literary sense, in a way they haven’t before.
We like to think that we have it all figured out in terms of understanding place in literature. But when you put a text into a spreadsheet you really have to understand what is being said about place in a whole different way than a close reading. So, if you take a sentence like: “He found them a hotel in Rue Lamartine, near Gard du Nord, in Monmatre”. Is that one location or three? The Edinburgh GeoParser maps two points but not Rue Lamartine… So you have to use Google maps for that… And is the accuracy correct. And you have to discuss if those two map points are distorting. The discussion there is more rich than any other discussion you would have around close reading. We are so confident about close readings… We assume it as a research method… This is a different way to close read… To shoe horn into a different structure.
So, I really like Michel De Certeau’s “Spatial stories” in The practice of everyday life (De Certeau 1984), where he talks about structured space and the ambiguous realities of use and engagement in that space. And that’s what that Rue LaMartine type example is all about.
Q&A
Q1) What about looking at distance between points, how length of discussion varies in comparison to real distance
A1) That’s an interesting thing. And that CartoDB Torque display is crude but exciting to me – a great way to explore that sort of question.
OER as Assessment – Stuart Nichol, LTW
I’m going to be talking about OER as Assessment from a students perspective. I study part time on the MSc in Digital Education and a few years ago I took a module called Digital Futures for Learning, a course co-created by participants and where assessment is built around developing an Open Educational Resource. The purpose is to “facilitate learning for the whole group”. This requires a pedagogical approach (to running the module) which is quite structured to enable that flexibility.
So, for this course, the assessment structure is 30% position paper (basis of content for the OER), then 40% of mark for the OER (30%peer-assessed and tutor moderated / 10% self assessed), and then the final 30% of the marks come from an analysis paper that reflects on the peer assessment. You could then resubmit the OER along with that paper reflecting on that process.
I took this module a few years ago, before the University’s adoption of an open educational resource policy, but I was really interested in this. So I ended up building a course on Open Accreditation, and Open Badges, using weebly: http://openaccreditation.weebly.com/.
This was really useful as a route to learn about Open Educational Resources generally but that artefact has also become part of my professional portfolio now. It’s a really different type of assignment and experience. And, looking at my stats from this site I can see it is still in use, still getting hits. And Hamish (Macleod) points to that course in his Game Based Learning module now. My contact information is on that site and I get tweets and feedback about the resource which is great. It is such a different experience to the traditional essay type idea. And, as a learning technologist, this was quite an authentic experience. The course structure and process felt like professional practice.
This type of process, and use of open assessment, is in use elsewhere. In Geosciences there are undergraduate students working with local schools and preparing open educational resources around that. There are other courses too. We support that with advice on copyright and licensing. There are also real opportunities for this in the SLICCs (Student Led Individually Created Courses). If you are considering going down this route then there is support at the University from the IS OER Service – we have a workshop at KB on 3rd March. We also have the new Open.Ed website, about Open Educational Resources which has information on workshops, guidance, and showcases of University work as well as blogs from practitioners. And we now have an approved OER policy for learning and teaching.
In that new OER Policy and how that relates to assessment, and we are clear that OERs are created by both staff and students.
And finally, fresh from the ILW Editathon this week, we have Ewan MacAndrew, our new Wikimedian in residence, who will introduce us to Histropedia (Interactive timelines for Wikipedia: http://histropedia.com) and run through a practical introduction to Wikipedia editing.
Wikimedian in Residence – University of Edinburgh – Ewan MacAndrew
Ewan is starting by introducing us to to “Listen to Wikipedia“, which turns live edits on Wikipedia right now into melodic music. And that site colour codes for logged in, anonymous, and clean up bots all making edits.
My new role, as Wikimedian in Residence, comes about from a collaboration between the University of Edinburgh and Wikimedia Foundation. And my role fits into their complimentary missions, which fit around the broad vision of imagining the world where all knowledge is openly available. My role is to enhance the teaching and curriculum, but also helping to highlight the rich heritage and culture around the university beyond that, and helping raise awareness of their commitment to open knowledge. But this isn’t a new collaboration, it is part of an ongoing collaboration through events and activities and collaboration.
It’s also important to note that I am a Wikimedian in Residence, rather than a Wikipedian in Residence. Wikimedia is the charitable foundation behind Wikipedia, but they have a huge family of projects including Wikibooks, MediaWiki, Wikispecies, etc. That includes Wikidata is the database of all knowledge that humans and machines can read, which is completely language independent – the model Wikipedia is trying to work towards.
So, what is Wikipedia and how does it work? Well we have over 5 million articles, 38 million pages, over 800 million edits, and over 130k active users.
There has been past work by the University with Wikimedia. There was the Women, Science and Scottish editathon for ILW 2015, Chris Harlow already spoke about his work, there was an Ada Lovelace editathon from October 2015, Gavin Willshaw was part of #1Lib1Ref day for Wikipedia’s 15th Birthday in January 2016. Then last week we had the History of Medicine editathon for ILW 2016 which generated 4 new articles, improved 56 articles, uploaded over 500 images to Wikicommons. Those images, for instance, have huge impact as they are of University buildings and articles with images are far more likely to be clicked on and explored.
You can explore that recent editathon in a Storify I made of our work…


View the story “University of Edinburgh Innovative Learning Week 2016 – History of Medicine Wikipedia editathon” on Storify

We are now looking at new and upcoming events, our next editathon is for International Women’s Day. In terms of ideas for events we are considering:

  • Edinburgh Gothic week – cross curricular event with art, literature, film, architecture, history, music and crime
  • Robert Louis Stevenson Day
  • Scottish Enlightenment
  • Scottish photographers and Image-a-thons
  • Day of the Dead
  • Scotland in WWI Editathon – zeppelin raids, Craiglockhart, etc.
  • Translationathons…

Really open to any ideas here. Do take a look at reports and updates on the University of Edinburgh Wikimedian in Residence activities here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:University_of_Edinburgh

So, I’m going to now quickly run through the five pillars of Wikipedia, which are:

  1. An encylopedia – not a gossip column, or blog, etc. So we take an academic, rigorous approach to the articles we are putting in.
  2. Neutral point of view – trying to avoid “peacock terms”. Only saying things that are certain, backed up by reliable published sources.
  3. Free content that anyone can use, edit and distribute.
  4. Respect and civility – when I run sessions I ask people to note that they are new users so that others in the community treat you with kindness and respect.
  5. No firm rules – for every firm rules there has to be flexibility to work with subjects that may be tricky, might not quite work. If you can argue the case, and that is accepted, there is the freedom to accept exceptions.

People can get bogged down in the detail of Wikipedia. Really the only rule is to “Be bold not reckless!“.

When we talk of Wikipedia and what a reliable source is, Wikipedia is based on reliable published source with reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Academic and peer-reviewed scholarly material is often used (barring the no original research distinction). High quality mainstream publications too. Blogs are not seen as reliable generally, but sites like BBC and CNN are. And you need several independent sources for a new article – generally we look for 250 words and 3 reliable sources for a new Wikipedia article.

Ewan is now giving us a quick tour through enabling the new (fantastic!) visual editor, which you can do by editing your settings as a registered user. He’s also encouraging us to edit our own profile page (you can say hello to Ewan via his page here), formatting and linking our profiles to make them more relevant and useful. Ewan is also showing how to use Wikimedia Commons images in profiles and pages. 

So, before I finish I wanted to show you Histropedia, which allows you to create timelines from Wikipedia categories.

Ewan is now demonstrating how to create timelines, to edit them, to make changes. And showing how the timelines understand “important articles” – which is based on high visibility through linking to other pages. 

If you create a timeline you can save these either as a personal timeline, or as a public timeline for others to explore. The other thing to be aware of is that WikiData can be modified to search for more specialised topics – for instance looking at descendants of Robert the Bruce. Or even as specific as female descendants of Robert the Bruce born in Denmark. That just uses Robert the Bruce and a WikiData term called “child of”, and from those two fields you can build a very specific timelines. Histropedia uses both categories and WikiData terms… So here it is using both of those.

Q&A

Q1) Does Wikidata draw on structured text in articles?

A1) It’s based on “an instance of”… “place of education” or “created on” etc. That’s one of the limitations of Histropedia right now… It can’t differentiate between birth and death date versus dates of reign. So limited to birth and death, foundation dates etc.

Q2) How is Wikipedia “language independent”?

A2) Wikipedia is language dependent. Wikidata is language independent. So, no matter what tool Wikidata uses, it functions in every single language. Wikipedia doesn’t work that way, we have to transfer or translate texts between different language versions of Wikipedia. Wikidata uses a q code that is neutral to all languages that gets round that issue of language.

Q3) Are you holding any introductory events?

A3) Yes, trying to find best ways to do that. There are articles from last week’s editathon which we could work on.

And with that we are done – and off to support our colleague Jeremy Knox’s launch of his new book: Posthumanism and the Massive Open Online Course: Contaminating the Subject of Global Education.

Thanks to all our fantastic speakers, and our lovely organisers for this month’s event: Stuart Nicol and Jo Spiller.

Feb 102016
 

Today I am at a Supervising Dissertations at a Distance workshop, co-hosted by eLearning@ed and the Institute for Academic Development. The session is based on a research project and is being facilitated by Dr Jen Ross, Dr Philippa Sheail and Clara O’Shea.

As this is a liveblog the usual caveats apply – and corrections and comments are welcome.

Jen Ross (JR): This event came about from some research that myself, Phil and Clara have worked on looking at online distance learners going through the dissertation process at a distance. So we will talk a bit about this, but also we have an exciting new development that we’ll be showing off: a board game based on our research!

So, myself, Phil and Clara worked on this project, funded by the Principal’s Teaching Award Scheme, with our colleagues Sian Bayne, Erin Jackson and Gill Aitken.

This work was done with 4 online distance programmes – clinical education, clinical management of pain, digital education and law. We had 18 semi-structured interviews conducted with graduates almost all via Skype. We undertook thematic analysis of transcripts. We also had 3 focus workshops/conversations with supervisors which enabled us to trigger reflection on the interview data.

So, to start with I want to talk about the “campus imaginary”, after Taylor’s idea of the “imaginary”, and Goggin’s definition of shared beliefs and understandings (rather than imaginary imaginary). Drawing on these we came up with the idea of the “Campus imaginaries” – the shared understanding of the campus and the organisation for those not physically here. We have nick-named this “when it was good it was very very good, but when it was bad it was the internet”. Why? People had lovely things to say, but when they didn’t they often attributed this to being an online distance learner, even when describing quite common dissertation experiences.

For instance June talks about struggling with time to do her dissertation around full time work – she attributes this to being an online distance student. Eva felt she had a good experience but that the supervision wasn’t great, it was adequate but she felt that it could have been better. And she also attributed this to being a distance student.

Terry says: “If you are full time you can just pop in and see your supervisor, or you speak to his secretary and book an appointment to see him. I don’t think there is a limit for a full time student.” [this gets audible laughs in the room given the realities of supervision on and off campus]

Now, that is funny but it is also poinagnt. That imagined idea of the physical space isn’t helpful for Terry and his expectations around supervision, of the support and time available, and those perceived differences between (idealised) physical and distance experience.

Arnott, meanwhile had a poor experience with their supervisor and felt that maybe being able to talk face to face might have helped that.

Nieve didn’t complete the dissertation, exiting with diploma. She felt (in retrospect) that doing some of the degree online, and some on-campus would have helped her as she felt lonely during her dissertation, and wanted to have the opportunity to share experience with other dissertation students. But again we can recognise that as a concern of many on campus students too.

So the themes that came up here, specifically in relation to online distance dissertations are also very familiar: unexpected obstacles; issues with motivation; supervisory relationships; time and space to focus; isolation; doubt. I think we have to do better at being supervisors helping students to understand what they can expect, that they can talk to us about all of these things, that we can support them (and that we don’t have secretaries!)

Phil Sheail (PS): I’m going to talk about the sense of “hospitality at a distance” – of hosting each other as distance students and supervisors, in learning spaces that overlap with homes.

Ruitenberg (2011), drawing on Derrida, in a great paper called “The empty chair: education in an ethic of hospitality” in Philosophy of education. She talks about hospitality as a demand for openness to the arrival of something and someone we cannot forsee: a demand that is impossible to fulfil, but that confronts all of our decisions and actions…”

I think this concept is relevant as whilst I was doing interviews there were so many different students, from different backgrounds and cultures… and it forces us to question some of our ideas of hospitality and of being a good host. Ruitenberg also talks about the figure of the teacher in “at-home” education. And the ethics of the university, the spaces of education are not the teachers

Amplification – you have to amplify yourself to put across your normal sense of enthusiasm, and that works well online.

One of the other things I did on a project with support services – disability office, careers, etc. and that connects to this idea of hospitality, and very particularly the idea of arrival, of welcome. So, we’ve been thinking about

Q: For intermittent learners, students might be engaged in a programme that they started 6 years ago, and starting a dissertation in that context.

A: Well when you start dissertation you may have a supervisor that hasn’t taught you… And there can be a dependency in that relationship between student and supervisor which can be challenging…

Q: Some of our supervisors are not Edinburgh staff members but those from NGOs etc.

A (JR): That was the case with one of the programmes we looked at. There it’s almost a welcome for supervisors too, and what does that mean in terms of making a space for dissertation, and establishing that complex relationship.

A (PS): Even if you are away from the institution, your supervisor is in a hospital etc. it’s important that the University does welcome you, particularly if things go wrong in that relationship, so they know where else to turn.

Martin, a supervisor, talked about the importance of a good and deliberate welcome for students.

In the example you just gave, of students who take a long time… Some students have complex care requirements. June again comments that she had gone through marriage breakdown, family crisis, health issues, but that for her, the degree was actually useful as a consistent presence in her life.

Now we’ve talked about welcomes and being supportive… But not all students actually want that. Terry comments that he wasn’t keen for hand holding and wouldn’t be whether he was full time, part time or online. And we have to remember that not all students want the same thing here.

JR: So we are going to turn now to how we can think of other ways to imagine the campus, alternatives that make students welcome. And also around fostering connections and counteracting negative disconnections. So, over to Clara…

Clara O’Shea (COS): The Dissertation Festival is an idea that Marshall and I came up with and made happen. We started this in 2011 – so reading Jen and Phil’s work backwards into what we do. This idea came out of the experience of loneliness and disconnection which can take place as a student going through the dissertation. We wanted something to support students through the dissertation process.

So, we try to run this festival 6-8 weeks before dissertations are due (usually August) so the festival is generally in May/June. The festival runs in Second Life – so we meet in a virtual space with sunshine, beach, virtual champagne and sushi. And this is just to be welcoming, warm, to make students feel comfortable.

So, the idea is that students come into the space, they present their work – 2 or 3 in an hour or hour and a half period, usually somewhat themed to foster connections, allow sharing of resources, etc. We checked student availability but also tutor availability – and opened the sessions up to others on the programme, and those beyond the programme. Participants do their presentation on voice chat for about 15 minutes. Questions come in in text chat – the presenter may reply during the talk or afterwards, which we also help facilitate.

So, last year we had some sessions on game based learning, multimodality, etc. We also had some tutor and alumni sessions on academic writing, on surviving and thriving through the dissertation, and also literature hunting. All of these sessions are synchronous but they are also recorded. Those recordings and the sessions are also complimented by a wiki (on PBWorks) where comments, further information, etc. can be shared. Each student has a page on the wiki with video, transcript, etc. But they also played with other ways to articulate their idea… We have them write haikus – they hate writing them but then find them really useful. They also play with images as well.

We also have a new innovation since last year called “The Visualisations Gallery”. This is to encourage students towards multimodality… We had tutors, current students, alumni all sharing visual ways to imagine their research.

And, even if a visitor can’t access that wiki, you can leave comments in Second Life.

The dissertation festival gives students a few things. It gives students a touchstone when things are quiet, a way to stay connected with the community. Students not yet at dissertation stage have the opportunity to see what that looks like, how that works. We’ve had students making connections, reading over a draft for each other. It gives students a chance to touch base with other supervisors… Which means accessing other expertise, to fill the gaps, to suggest other content.

So, when Jen talked about campus imaginaries, I think maybe this gives an imaginary that is more realistic and helpful. Places like Second Life give a useful, shared delusion of the campus. We all experience that very differently depending on their own timezone, location, the version of software they are running… It’s an illusion we all buy into. But arguably that is the experience of being on campus anyway.

On a practical basis we move those virtual logs, we adapt the voice presentation to the speakers needs, etc. But every time people come into Second Life they bring in their home space – the sounds, the distractions – and share that. It makes that special overlapping space. The space changes every time anyone comes in and out, and the dialogic space that participants create. And I think that’s where hospitality fits in.

Q&A

Q1: Can you say more about the interviewees – how many students, how many supervisors. I would like to know more about similarities or differences between supervisors and students.

A1 (JR): The interviewees were all students. The supervisors gave input through workshops, where they reflected and responded to student comments. Those haven’t been written up as quotes yet but inform our understanding here. One thing that struck me was that supervisors often also feel a sense of dislocation from supervisees… For instance maintenance of an authoritative supervisory role when you and the student are Skyping each other from home, you see the students kids running about, etc. And that giving those relationships a different character and nature perhaps.

Q2: For us the distance is often not as important about the fact that they are intermittant adn part time.

A2: That longer process does mean more can happen… Which can mean more likelihood to need to take an interruption of studies, and struggle to fit things in.

Q2: As a coordinator one of my challenges is managing supervisor expectations – that students don’t work full time for 10 months.

A2 (PS): Certainly some students took a while to get going… Changes in work or work priorities can impact on projects, especially work-based projects. One of our students had moved through 3 continents whilst doing their work.

A2 (COS): The festival can be useful for providing an additional deadline. Students often struggle to prioritise their own research over their work commitments etc. Students can also have unrealistic idea of their own – and their supervisors – availability during the dissertation process. When my students start we talk  through those things that

A2 (PS): We did have students feeling they were out of sync with other students. In one programme regular Skype chats were available but being ahead or behind made that chat less useful… They got into this idea that only students at the same pace/stage can share. There was also that issue Clara mentioned about being unclear on how much time they could expect from supervisors, or how much they were allowed. More clarity there might help.

A2 (JR): One of the most interesting things for me was seeing the difference in practice between programmes. Some started at the same time, some were rolling… But no matter how rigid the system some students always went out of sync. It was interesting to see how many ways there are to organise a programme and a dissertation process, you can only organise so far.

Q3: Are there resources we can give supervisors meeting students for the first time that they haven’t taught before?

A3: We have a dissertation planner that is for students to adapt, to help them manage the process, to understand availability of students at a given time, etc. These are on the website too. So things like work commitments, times when supervisors are away…

Q3: That sounds more like its for students. What about supervisors.

A3: There are resources for PhD supervision but if you talk to Velda (IAD) she will be able to comment.

A3 (PS): I think for student services it is important to have routes for students to access them online. Careers, counselling, disability and chaplaincy all have some some of page for what they can do for online programmes now, and are looking at ways to offer services online. I had a student I spoke to in this research who had a horrible personal time, and she was surprised that counselling was never suggested

Comment (LC): There are resources you can embed in Learn for your courses that point to those support services.

Q4: Is 6-8 weeks really enough time for capturing the problems?

A4: I think it’s about right. We’ve tried later – and that’s too late. We’ve tried earlier but students get nervous about what they can present. It seems to be around 8 weeks is about right. And, if they aren’t ready at that point then students are in trouble and need to have conversations with supervisors. At that stage they can’t change methodologies though… But our research methods course ends with an assignment which is a proposal for research which triggers those sorts of theoretical and methodological conversations early, and raise any major concerns on timing etc.

JR: And now…. We will have a short break but then when we come back we will be playing Dissertation Situation: the board game based around our work! This is a primarily discussion based game.

So, the thing that is useful to know is that the scenarios in the game have come from data generated in this project. So these are real world problems (slightly fictionalised). They have happened, they are likely to happen again.

Cue board games… 

Q&A

Q1: We want an online version!

A1: We did talk about that – either to share and then print off, or to play online.

Comment: We should get students to play too!

Comment: I think that this would be really useful for supervisors, to know they are not alone, but also for students to understand what can arise.

Q2: I was also going to say that students should place. For us we didn’t get through the whole game in the time… And that was fine… But for me it wasn’t important to finish necessarily – that’s a game design thing perhaps, and a timing thing.

A2: I did some rough calculations… But it was guesswork.

PS: Any areas that weren’t useful for particular disciplines?

Comment: Yes, the data question doesn’t really apply to psychology in the same way, or for law. But literature related question on losing data would apply.

PS: One of things we were aware of was that some online distance learners wouldn’t have bandwidth – eg programmes with students in sub-Saharan Africa – to play this game online – or only a simple version. But actually a download version might work.

Comment: Would also be good to share this, or a list of scenarios to supervisors off-campus, not affiliated with the University.

Comment: I think it might be easier to get to students than supervisors…

Comment: And concerned it could be seen as patronising… But you could call it a simulation.

Comment: For new supervisors etc. you could set up a wiki with the questions, and have discussion there…

Comment: I think it would be interesting to know what potential there is for moderating, fact checking, or connecting this to other resources, things that new or outside supervisors just may not know are there. Some pragmatic solutions also potentially put a supervisor at some risk, or raise controversial issues, so knowing where to put those, flag those up… What to do next etc. would be great.

And with that we are done with a really interesting session. Huge thanks to Jen, Phil and Clara for this workshop. Do feel free to follow up with them about that game – it was a really useful tool for discussion. 

Related Links

 

 

Jan 062016
 

Today I am delighted to be hosting – in my eLearning@ed Convener hat – a talk from Martin Hawksey, from ALT.

Note: this is a live blog so apologies for any typos, errors etc – corrections always welcome.

I am one of about four members of staff at ALT – the Association of Learning Technologists. How many of you are ALT members? (a good chunk of the room are) And how many of you have heard of our conference? (pretty much all). I’m going to talk today about what else ALT does, where there are opportunities to take part etc.

A key part of what we want to do is improve practice, promote research and influence policy around information technology. We support learning technologists of course, but our members cross a wide range of roles reflecting the range of learning technology use. ALT itself was established in 1993 – before the internet which is an interesting marker. ALT has 1700+ individual and 180 organisational members at present. ALT works across sectors including Further Education, Higher Education and research, and ALT is also an international community. And, as you are all part of the University of Edinburgh you can join ALT for free as an associate member. To become a voting member/get involved in governance etc. you do, however, need to apply for full membership.

Before I worked at ALT I didn’t really appreciate that ALT is truly a membership organisation – and governed by its members. And that genuinely drives the organisation.

In terms of the benefits of membership there are three areas particularly relevant: keeping pace with technology; developing skills; recognition for your work. We also have the ALT-MEMBERS list (a Jiscmail list) and that is a really rich resource in terms of people posing questions, receiving feedback on what they are doing. You obviously have elearning@ed giving you a great insight into your local community, that ALT-MEMBERS list does some of the same stuff on a wider/global scale. For instance discussion on VLE Review (a conversation including 24 replies); tracking Twitter hashtags (a conversation including 14 replies); a post on appropriate use of social media and advice on inappropriate behaviour (had 15 replies and became a blog post drawing resources together); review of web conferening tools had 23 replies. So you can see there is huge interaction here, content to draw upon, trends to pick up, information being shared. If you aren’t yet a member of that list then you can sign up – it is a closed list and you need to be an ALT member to sign up.

Do you have any feedback on the mailing list?

Comment: It is just too busy for me, too many emails.

I think it is useful to have that health warning that there is a lot of traffic. You can manage that with filters, subscribing to the digest etc. But you need to be aware of the volume. In terms of posting we’d recommend a good subject line – to catch those eyes – and as with any list it’s good to do a bit of research first and share that in your post, that makes it more likely that you will have replies and engagement. Despite all the other technologies we have available email is still suprisingly important.

ALT also has Member Groups and SIGs (Special Interest Groups) on areas such as games and learning, open education, MOOCs, FELTAG.The SIGs tend to change as different trends go in and out of popularity – the open education group is especially busy at the moment for instance. There is also a specific ALT-Scotland group. So, for instance ALT-Scotland recently held a policy board with funders and policy makers to understand what they are thinking and doing at the moment which was hugely valuable.

In addition to email we are also using Twitter. For our conference and events we’ve moved away from specific hashtags for each towards a since hashtag – #altc – and that’s a great way to share your message with the community. We monitor and retweet that hashtag – and we have around 7000 followers. That hashtag can be used for projects, events, blog posts, etc. It’s pretty all encompassing.

As I mentioned ALT is your organisation, as a member. Our governance model is that we have a board of trustees including ALT members in Scotland – currently we have a member from Glasgow Caledonian, and another from Heriot-Watt. Our current vice-chair is Martin Weller, OU, our chair is ? and our current president is ?. We also have operational committees – a rewarding thing to do, enabling you engage with the community and good for your CV of course. And we have editors for the ALT journals as well.

I also mentioned recognition… How many of you have heard of CMALT – Certified Membership? (pretty much all in the room have) What do you want to know about it? It is a portfolio-based accreditation – you submit electronically and you can do that in whatever electronic format you like. That portfolio is certified by peers, and you can nominate one of your assessors. And they will give you feedback. There is a cost – about £150 – but if a group of you want to submit there is a reduced group rate.

Because there are a range of roles within ALT the skills assessed cover a range of core areas (operational issues; teaching, learning and assessment, wider context, communication), and specialist areas (such as leadership, tech development, administration, research, policy). The key thing is to certify your commitment to learning technology. It can feel like saying what you do but it is also about successes, reflection on success and failure, and working with feedback and support – about being a better learning technologist and making you have that professional journey. It isn’t just about the achievement of the certificate.

Question: How long does this take?

Once you are registered you have up to a year to complete and submit your portfolio. Obviously it doesn’t take that long to do. Maybe a few hours per area is sufficient – 20 or 24 hours perhaps for portfolios. There are examples of submitted portfolios and guidance on the ALT website. We also try to run regular CMALT webinars where you can talk to other candidates about the process and the detail.

Question: What are the benefits of doing CMALT?

Interestingly CMALT has been running for around 10 years now. We just passed our 300th CMALT certified members. And we have increasingly seen ALT members looking for CMALT as a desirable qualification for roles, which is obviously helpful for job prospects. The main benefit though is that process itself -the reflection, the capture of that experience, the opportunity to develop your practice.

Additionally CMALT maps to UKPSF and HEA Fellowship. We have mapped the requirements of UKPSF onto CMALT so that if you do either of those you may be able to reuse that work in applying to the other – there is more about this on the website.

Also we have the annual Learning Technologist of the Year Awards (#LTAwards), to recognise excellence in the sector. The awards are open internationally but most applicants are UK based. You can nominate someone else, or yourself. We normally announce these in April, so watch this space. Again, this is a great way to boost your CV but there is also a cash prize. This year the winner has been working on using Minecraft in teaching.

We have run ALT publications for years – we used to have the ALT Newsletter which we have now rebranded as the #ALTC Blog – anyone can contribute to this and we have editors who are all ALT members. We have around 225 posts and counting and look for posts of around 500 words each. Again, a great way to get information out.

We also have Research in Learning Technology (used to be known as ALTJ), and a great way to get full on research publications out there. It is a peer reviewed open access journal. It is rolling submission – although we have the capacity to do special issues. Again this publishing schedule fits with the roles and schedules of ALT members. There are no submission fees like some other open access journals – so little overhead to submitting. And the process can be very useful for preparing to submit to elsewhere. We have a bit of a boom at the moment so we currently have a call out for new editors – so if you are interested do take a look. Full details of submission processes can be found on the journal website.

As I mentioned we also have the annual conference, which is a really interesting conference but can melt your brain slightly – 3 very busy days! How many here have gone to the ALT conference? And how do you find it?

Comment) I find every second year works well. I like that you get a broad overview of what is happening in the sector, and a way to take the temperature of the sector in a fairly unique way.

Even if you can’t make it in person we do livestream a lot of the keynotes and plenary sessions, so we haven’t announced our keynote speaker. Last year we have Laura Cernovicz from Capetown, South Africa on ethics of education, open access, open education etc. We also had Jonathan Worth from University of Coventry, who has experimented with opening up courses to wider audiences and the challenges on informed and implied consent around use of social media in these. We also had Steve Wheeler. In the plenaries we had Rebecca ? from Oxford University on scaling learning analytics there. The videos of sessions are all available online on the ALT YouTube channel. It’s worth looking back to 2014 as we had some great speakers then including Audrey Walters, Catherine Cronin and Jeff Hayward.

In terms of other events note that OER16 is in Edinburgh next April – here at University of Edinburgh and co-chaired by Lorna Campbell and Melissa Highton.

Lorna: This year we are focusing on open cultures and making connections to galleries, museums. Submissions are closed at the moment – we are marking those right now. In terms of speakers we have Catherine Cronin, University of Galway; Melissa Highton, University of Edinburgh; John Scally, NLS; Emma Smith, Oxford University on Open Shakespeare work; and Jim Groom from DS106 – a MOOC or perhaps a cult – and the forefront of open higher education. The conference is on 19th and 20th April and registration will open up shortly. And it would be great to see a good cross-section of Edinburgh folk there.

Martin: ALT’s work with OER is a more recent thing, in terms of supporting its’ running. And that is in recognition of the importance of openness. And it’s worth noting that the call for OER17 chairs is now open.

The other thing to be aware of is the ALT Online Winter Conference 2015 – a free conference online, open to anyone to drop into and participate. Presenters all needed to be ALT members. And we hope to run this again this year. The call will go out in September so keep an eye out for that.

Something else ALT does is the policy side. So, a big plug here for our ALT Annual Survey – which is our opportunity to understand current and future practice, to enable us to represent our members needs. And this information helps us understand those needs for policy responses as well, for instance on the development of the Digital Learning and Teaching Strategy for Scotland. Currently ALT is preparing a response to the TEF as well.

One of the things I wanted to talk about was… last night I tweeted that I’d be talking here and was looking for what the benefit of being a member of ALT is… Originally I asked about technology and I realised there were technologies I wouldn’t have had access to without being part of ALT… For instance last year we ran an event here at the Informatics Forum where we got to use a real Oculus Rift – certainly at CES VR is supposed to be the big thing. Also John Kerr at Glasgow Caledonian had Google Glass along to see how his projects with it worked. There are opportunities to be introduced to new technologies. Also BuddyPress was something that in 2009 at the ALT Conference Joss Winn was experimenting with BuddyPress and finding it useful… Fast forward and we use BuddyPress in ALT activities, online courses etc. And it was that connection and chat that led to that solution… Again these are part of the benefits of being part of this lovely melting pot of people, contributing to the ALT community… Less about what than who in many ways.

Other benefits include discounts for the ALT conference (a big one), we also negotiate with other conferences – e.g. Online Educa this year.

Finally… Emerging areas and my advice on this…

This is related to the ALT community/membership thing. Throughout my career I have gotten the most out of technology by being flexible in what I focus on – but you do need to focus on things in some depth. A benefit of being part of a wider community means they can filter through those a bit, making you aware of them as they do. I have at various times worked on voting systems, peer instruction, Twitter, learning analytics… So, my advice is… With such a broad field keep half an eye of what is going on – and the ALT community is great for that – but also delve in and get lost in…

And with that Martin is done… and we open up for some discussion on emerging areas… this group suggests they include: policy; what an institution is and what its bounds are in the face of online education; teacher presence in various contexts, including the impact of MOOCs on student expectations.

Martin: Expectations are a really interesting area… In peer instruction you move things out of the classroom. Back when we trialled some of those approaches and moved a lecture out, the students resisted… They wanted that lecture, and to be in that room.

Comment: I think that depends on trust in peers… My undergraduate experience involved trusting some but there were also risks of social bullying dynamics and I would have had real concern about that.

Martin: The social aspect of being at an institution is a high priority… Whether an online experience can replicate that is interesting. And digital identity and the transitions between one form of digital identity to another, the move to professional attributes. Which is why learning technology is never dull!

And with that we broke for lunch and discussion. You can explore Martin’s magic live tweets and Lorna Campbell’s (less automated but no less impressive) live tweets in the Storify below:

You can also view the full story “Martin Hawksey talk on ALT for eLearning@ed (6th Jan 2016)” on Storify.