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 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 282016
 

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

Jo Spiller – Introductions

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

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

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

Marketing ODL

Dissertations at a Distance & eLearning@ed

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

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

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

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

Q1: How do students respond to them?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q5: Are they scripted?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Imogen is playing a video from our Warhol MOOC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q1: Is there a university transcription service?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are now watching the Edinburgh MOOCs showreel… 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q2: How have the rest of the faculty responded?

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

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

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

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

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

Q5: Are these openly on YouTube?

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

Hands On MediaHopper Session – Stephen Donnelly and Mark Jennings

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the dissertation process is loosely:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Can you integrate with groups in Learn?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commentator: Yes, you can see that by arrangement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Question: Has anyone tried the next version of Pebblepad?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Apr 232015
 

On this very sunny Thursday I am at the IAD in Bristo Square for the elearning@ed forum’s 2015 conference which is focusing on Designing for 21st Century Learning. I’ll be taking notes throughout the day (though there may be a gap due to other meeting commitments). As usual these are live notes so any corrections, updates, etc. are welcomed.

The speakers for today are:

Welcome – Melissa Highton, Director, Learning Teaching and Web Services, IS.

Thank you all for coming. It’s a full agenda and it’s going to be a great day. Last year Jeff left us with the phrase that it is “exciting times” and that’s reflected by how fast this event filled up, sold out… you are lucky to get a seat! Being part of this community, to this forum, is about a community commitment we will see throughout the day, and we are very lucky and very appreciative of that.

Designing for 21st Century Learning is our theme for today. As someone who did all their formal learning in the 20th century, I started with a bit of Googling for what 21st Century might be – colourful diagrams seems to be the thing! But I also looked for some accounts from the university of what that might mean… some things that came through where that it is about teaching understanding of difficult things in all subjects, do a little to remove the inequalities of life, practical work and making things with one’s hands “the separation of hand and brain is an evil for both”. But these words are from 1905, they are from the University Settlement. But actually many of those remain common values. But there are are also issues of technology, of change…

“It’s not ok not to understand the internet anymore” – Martha Lane-Fox delivering the Dimbleby Lecture at London’s Science Museum, March 2015. That is certainly part of what we are talking about. Most in this room will feel they understand the internet, but we also have to be thinking about the challenges raised, the trends. And I’m going to finish with a graphic from the New Media Consortium (which the university is part of) tracking some of these changes and trends here/coming soon.

Chairs session – Individual short presentations, followed by open panel discussion (chaired by Jessie Paterson)

Designing for 21st Century earning: the view where I sit Prof. Judy Hardy, Physics Education, (Physics and Astronomy) Profile

I was asked to give the view from where I am, in 10 minutes, which is fairly tough! So I will be sharing some of my thoughts, some of what is preoccupying me at the moment.

Like Melissa I saw the concept of 21st Century Learning and thought “gosh, what’s that”. So I tried to think about a student coming here in 2020. That student will probably be just about coming to the end of their first year at secondary school right now. So what will it look like… probably quite a lot like now… lectures, tutorials, workshops etc. But what they will have is even more technology at their fingertips… Whether that is tablets or whatever.

We have been working on a project tracking students use of technology. We didn’t tell them what to use or how. They used cloud based word processor saying it saved times, seeing each others writing styles benefitted the flow of the report they worked on together. They used Facebook and self organised groups to compliment and coordinate activity. They just did it. I think many didn’t mention it as they just took it for granting…

Interactive engagement in learning performs something like double the learning gain (see R.R. Hake 2007). But wht is that? We did research (Hardy et al 2014) on academic staff teaching in UK university physics departments. Many want to teach, many focus as much on teaching as research. So what are the challenges? Well time and time as a proxy for other things… We can’t ignore that if we really want to move from a dedicated few doing great teaching work, to mainsteaming that. Deslauriers, Schelew and Wieman (2011) in Science found that it took 20 hours preparation to teach with a flipped classroom – that reduces after the first run but it is a substantial investment of time. Pedagogically there is also confusion over the best tools or approaches to take..

What is preoccupying me quite a bit at the moment… It is not about the “what” and “how” but about the “why’. There is awareness of what we should or might do. How to do that is very important – you need to know what to do and how to do it. But you also need to understand the principles behind that, why you are doing that, what the purpose is. You need to know what you can modify, and why, and what the consequences of that might be. When we are doing teaching, when we are thinking about teaching, we need to have this in mind. Otherwise we end up using the same formats (e.g. lectures) just surrounded by new technology.

Prof. Sian Bayne, Digital Education, (Education) Profile

It was a bit of a wide brief for this session, so I thought I would talk about something happening this week. Some of you will be aware that the #rhizo15 MOOC is running again this week, the Rhizomatic Learning “cMOOC” idea. And I saw lots of tweets about a paper I’d written… Which got me thinking about what has been happening… and where things are going…

That paper looked at the Deleuze and Guattari (1988) concept of striated space (closed, hierachichal, structured, etc.) vs smooth space (open ended, non hierachichal, wandering-orientate, amorphous). And that these spaces, these metaphors, intersect… And this paper was using these metaphors in the design of learning itself. So, back in 2004 the VLEs and LMSs was pretty much what there was in terms of online learning – very striated spaces. Emerging at that time in a more smooth space – were ideas like scholarly hypertext, multimodal assessments, anonymous discussion boards (which went, but are kind of back with YikYak), wikis and blogs.

So, what has changed around 10 years later? Well in the striated space we have VLEs and LMSs, Turnitin, e-portfolios, and we have things that may be striating forces including personalisation (flexible but to rules), adaptive learning, learning analytics, gamification (very goal orientated), wearables.  In terms of the smooth spaces… we have Twitter (though some increasing striation), YikYak, real openness. And we also see augmented realities and flipped classrooms, maker spaces, and crowd-based learning as smoother spaces.

So, what’s next? The bigger point I want to make is that we have a tendency in this field to be very futures orientated. I was also googling this week for elearning and digital education trends 2015.. huge numbers of reports and trends which are useful but there is also a change acceleration, trends and practices to respond to and keep up with. We need to remember that we are doing those things in the context, to look back a bit, to consider what kind of teaching do we actually want to do, what kind of university do we want to be. And ultimately what is higher education actually for? And those kinds of considerations have to sit alongside that awareness of changes, trends, technologies…

Using Technology to support learners’ goal setting – Prof. Judy Robertson, Digital Learning, (Education) “Using technology to support learners’ goal setting”.  Profile

I am also talking about what I am working on this week, which has mainly been data analysis! My work looks at technology use by children (and sometimes university students). I design and evaluate technology for education and behaviour change, often designing learners in the design process. There are aspects of behaviour change and concepts from games that can be particularly useful here, but games tend to have set goals built in (even if you can choose your goals from a set), and I look at learners setting their own goals.

So my research vision is about working with users to develop technology which enables them to set and monitor appropriate goals for themselves in the context or education and healthcare – that could be working with children and teachers to develop software which enables goal setting around problem solving and physical activity, or to work with new undergraduates to help them to plan and monitor their studying, or even working with older adults to assist them to change their patterns of sedentary behaviour. But there is a risk of becoming like the Microsoft paperclip… How do we actually make technology useful here?

So I have been working on an exergame (a game where physical exertion is the input medium) called Critter Jam (aka FitQuest) which is looking at whether it is possible to motivate children to increase their activity. So the game might have you collecting virtual coins, or being chased by a virtual wolf… It is all about encouraging mainly running activities, with mainly playground game type activities. Within the game children can pick from different goals… For those with intrinsic motivation tendencies you can aim for your personal best… For some children you might set a custom points target – and how children (or indeed university students) pick that target is interesting. Some children may want to top the leader board  – that motivates some, but competition can be negative too…

So, we are also looking at fine grained log file data from around 70 kids over 5 weeks as part of a wider RCT data set. I’ve been looking on the sort of goals kids set and how they achieve them. And also looking at how self-efficacy relates to goal setting. And as you look at the data you can look at the high performing kids and see where there are patterns in their goal settings.

It turns out that kids achieved their goals around 50% of the time, which is a bit of a disappointment. And those who expect to do well, tend to set more ambitious goals – which raises some questions for us. And in terms of how goal setting relates to high performance gains we have some interesting qualitative data. We interviewed some students – all of our kids here were 10 years old – and they reported that if they had set too hard a goal, they would reset to a lower goal, but then aim to keep improving it. This seems reasonable and thoughtful for a 10 year old. At 10 that’s not what all students will do though (even for undergraduates that doesn’t even work). Speaking to another child they aimed fairly low, to avoid the risk of failure… again something we need to bear in mind with university students and how ambitiously they set their own goals.

Prof. Dave Reay, Carbon Management and Education, (Geosciences) Profile

I completely misunderstood the brief… or perhaps took it differently… I wanted to tell you a bit about what we do, and the work I do in digital education. I’m based in geosciences and I work on climate change. But seven years ago – in this very room – we started a new masters programme on carbon management, aimed at helping our students understand how we tackle the holistic challenges of climate change. And part of the challenge for us as lecturers was how we can make this issue apply, feel practical, that included applied experience. So we started to think about how we could develop online learning to do this. So we started by developing tools on “hot house schools” using Labyrinth to let students take the role of teacher, headmaster, etc. to understand decisions taken to keep students safe, to make changes, etc. And I got a real passion for online learning.

The interactive stuff worked well, the interactions with students online worked well… And we launched that online masters four years ago. As you will all know that interaction online can be at least as rich as face to face programmes. And we now have a new programme with both face to face aspects and a core course running online. We are also creating a course on sustainability, the idea being for our on campus face to face students to really understand sustainability in their field (whatever that is) and an online course was what we felt could deliver this. The vision is for every student on campus to have the opportunity to look at this, to think about sustainability in their fields. They will leave this institution understanding not only sustainability but also a positive experience of online education, that they think of Edinburgh when they think about lifelong learning, of retraining – a very 21st century learning issue. So, I think in a few years time I will have exciting slides to share on that.

Finally I wanted to talk about my research which is on climate change and carbon footprints. In the last few years I have been looking at digital education, ICT, etc. from the perspective of their environmental impact. So we have quantified all of the emissions associated with the programme – we are calling it the greenest masters ever! The face to face programme is great but travel of students is significant, estates and buildings have a big carbon footprint, so we can actually put a number on every aspect of the online masters and its carbon footprint – and we can offset it too! So, if you are interested in the kinds of innovations taking place, and how they relate to emissions and carbon footprints. We want data, we want to quantify online as a greener way for our students to learn, so please get in touch.

Learning Analytics – Prof. Dragan Gasevic, Learning Analytics, (Informatics and Education.) Profile

I am based in both the Schools of Education and Informatics. And I will talk a bit about what we are talking about when we say “learning analytics”. Usually we mean that we are looking at data from learning technologies. But before we get to that we need to talk about why we might do this. We have already heard about our learners as non traditional, heterogeneous… but we cannot personalise the entire learning experience for every students manually. Feedback loops are, however, so important to the learning process.

So, most educational institutions today have student information systems – from before enrolment, courses taken, financial information etc. And then we also have learning environments – LMSs and VLEs like Blackboard, Moodle, etc. But we also have so much more out there… From social networks, to searches, to blogs and other collaborative and reflective tools, and then we also have slides and resources. And wherever we go here we are always creating a digital footprint. And that is irreversible. Today we have the computing technology to analyse that data too. What we want to do with learning analytics is to use those digital traces, for use by instructors, by organisations. And that enables the provision of personalised feedback back to the learners.

We are touching, most of our research, on most of these nodes… But the guiding force here is that learning analytics are about learning. We must not forget that. It is not just data capture without questions. It is a reminder that we have to think about the critical factors that learning analytics need to account for. We have to remember that learners are not black boxes, they are individuals and they have traits but those traits change – background knowledge, understanding, technology and cognitive tools. To really deliver on the expectations of learning analytics we need to understand that.

So, one example here is a piece of technology, for video annotation, to enable reflective practice. Students can view a video and can then leave comments at a particular moment at the video, tag that comment, etc. But if learners are unaware that technologies or tools might be beneficial, they won’t be motivated to use it. So we have a responsibility to scaffold our learners use of these tools, and convey that to our learners so that they are motivated, and so that they understand those benefits rather than just be presented with the tools.

We ran a study in British Columbia we tried too approaches to creative reflective activities and tools. In one group they were not graded, in another they were graded and received feedback. But we also ran a third course which was similarly graded, but these students had previously used this tool and they started to internalise those benefits – they doubled their use of their tool. When those same students (who had initially been graded on their use) undertook a non graded task, they continued to use it… which tells us a lot about these students motivations. We did see some quality reduction in their annotations… So that tells us that we need to provide additional scaffolds for their work… So for instance simply encouraging students to share annotations with each other can do that.

Learning analytics are only useful if we know what we need, what conditions we work in – counts don’t count much if decontextualised. We need to think of this and approach it as a scaling up of qualitative analysis in some ways, and for that to be part of learning analytics as well.

I also wanted to say that pretty visualisations can be harmful. We have to be very careful when sharing visualisations with students. University of Melbourne showing visualisations of performance to a group of students that was quite demotivating – both for those doing less well, and for those performing well who saw they were doing better than others.

One size does not fit all in learning analytics and institutional policies and practices have to reflect that. And with that I will end for now.

Virtual Edinburgh – Turning the whole city into a pervasive learning environment – Prof. Jonathan Silvertown, Technology Enhanced Science Education, (Biological Sciences) “Virtual Edinburgh: Turning the City into a pervasive learning environment”.

The thing to know about the future is that the seeds of the future are already here… Perhaps in your pocket through your smart phone. Many of the devices you carry around with you already have huge potential, and may be starting to be used in education but there is more that can be done.

I’m talking about  a project we are calling “Virtual Edinburgh” which is looking to harness that existing technology and use the whole city as a learning environment. This picture in my slides is taken from a bus enabled with wifi – that’s part of what I mean by the future already being here… And there are already apps seeking to do this… Walking Through Time – lets you explore historical maps of the city, LitLong (formerly Palimpsest) – shares literature in the context of the city, MESH – looks at social history in the city, BGS’s iGeology 3D lets you explore the geology around you, FieldTrip GB lets you create your own research data collection form, iSpot lets you identify aspects of the natural world, and Wikipedia has a nearby function that can be used with students… There are already a lot of stuff we can use in this environment…

So I just want to show you an idea of how we could put this whole idea together… So a trip on a bus from Calton Hill to Kings Buildings… You might identify some wildlife on Calton Hill with iSpot – discovering what a plant species is, looking it up on Wikipedia… The missing link here is back to the university and what we do at University of Edinburgh – if you searched for that plant you’d get back to the scientists researching these plants at Kings Buildings… So, Virtual Edinburgh is looking to connect these aspects together and to expose these elements more widely.

Looking at the University’s ‘Emerging Vision of Learning and Teaching” I wanted to draw out the elements that call for students having greater agency in co-creation of learning, and of being part of the wider community and learning with them. So, I see Virtual Edinburgh as engaging in various modes of student participation – within pre-baked VE apps there will be elements of data retrieval and engagement; as well as more interactive aspects including students creating new data, new apps, new ideas as well. And the Infrastucture will be about a teaching and learning infrastructure, a data infrastructure and a technical infrastructure…

The ultimate objective is to make Edinburgh the city of learning.

Q&A (all speakers)

Q1) One of the running themes here was about digital literacy. Judy’s comment that students barely commenting on the use of Facebook, as not worthy of mention by them… So what baseline of technologies do we expect from students these days, and what do we expect staff to keep up with?

A1 – Judy R) That’s a really interesting question. Although children and secondary school learners are exposed to technologies we cannot assume they understand how to use them appropriately. We cannot assume that.

A1 – Judy H) One thing to add to that is that we have to understand how institutional and personal technologies are intermixed. In that study there were centrally provided technologies but most moved swiftly to their own personal choices of technologies, and we have to understand that and what we do with that.

A1- Dragon) We know that there are no such things as “digital natives”, that we cannot assume understanding. Students may be more exposed to technologies but young kids are not neccassarily exposed to creating things in these spaces… They may even be at a lower level of skills than in the past simply because of the affordances of the types of tools they are using.

A1 – Dave) I have an embaressing confession to make. When we first ran this course we looked to use Google Hangout… I was all set up… I was waiting… The time ticked over… and noone joined me but my email went wild with students unable to get in… And we learnt that we have to understand and pre-set up those spaces ahead of time…

A1 – Sian) What Dragon said is really important here in terms of our expectations of students and the realities of their knowledge and understanding of these tools.

[Apologies, at this point my sore throat kicked off so I was unable to type… We had some interesting questions about the gap between students in first and second year, the innovations there, and what happens later on in a programme… ; and on learning skills and how they relate to learning outcomes]

Q2 [in my numbering, about the fourth or fifth in the room]) Internationally we have MOOCs, we have students from across the world

A2 – Dave) Part of what is so exciting about teaching online is that so many students internationally could not attend in person – due to location, family commitments, immigration restrictions. And online learning not only has environmental benefits but also opportunities to really help make the university the brilliant place it can be.

A2 – Sian) I think that it is useful to distinguish between learning and education – where education is the formalised accredited aspect of what we do. It’s not that we shouldn’t be part of that wider space of learning but that that distinction matters.

A2 – Dragon) Sian’s distinction is very important here. But we also have to remember that students don’t just attend for course content. It is about the knowledge and skills of those they will be engaging with. To learn online students also need exceptional organisational skills and discipline to fit their learning around their lives. But we also see different types of learning – capabilities and competency based learning which can have negative connotations but are also quite useful concepts.

Q3) I’m always quite interested in the gap between primary and secondary school education in terms of technologies… And how we keep up with that…

A3 – Judy R) There are quite different expectations around technologies. We have primary schools using Microsoft Office – which seems kind of weird given that it’s a professional productivity tool – and some use of blogs appearing although there is something of a horror at the use of anything social, and of any tools beyond the walled garden.

A3 – Judy H) We also have to remember that not all our learners come from Scottish schools… There is a great range of backgrounds that our learners have come through…

A3 – Dave) I do see what my own kids encounter, how they are learning… But I would also refer to the oracles at Moray House as well to get an idea beyond what I see in our undergraduates…

A3 – Jonathan) Perhaps next time this event runs that is a talk we should see here in fact.

And with that Jessie thanks our wonderful speakers for a stimulating session, and we are off for tea, coffee, or in my case a lot of Fisherman’s Friends and a quiet glass of water.

“Co-Creation: Student Ownership of Curriculum” (Workshop) – Dash Sekhar, VPAA, EUSA and Tanya Lubicz-Nawrocka, EUSA

Tanya: The panel session today was a great way to kick off this event. And it certainly made me think about Ron Barnett, and his book Realizing the University in an Age of Supercomplexity. I’m going to be taking you through some of the theory I am looking at – as I am both a member of EUSA staff and a PhD student at the Moray House School of Education. 

Kuh’s definition of student engagement is “the time and effort students devote to activities that are empirically linked

Cathy Bovill (Cook-Sather, Bovil, Fenton 2014) also talks about Co-creation of the curriculum being about “partnerships based on respect, reciprocity and shared responsibility between students and faculty”. That has great opportunities but can also be difficult – students don’t always know they can share in a lecture, and that co-creation idea can seem scary to both staff and students.

Thinking about co-creation and representation, we just had our teaching awards last night. Students are the experts in their own learning so student representatives are not only invaluable as sources of feedback, but also as proposers of solutions as well. Co-creation of the curriculum is about recognising student expertise, their goals, where they want to go, and how the learning outcomes of the course relate to that. It opens up the boundaries of what we can expect of education.

Dash: We’ve talked about the concepts and radical ideologies and of moving governance of the university so that students are active at all levels. But I’m going to talk about examples, in a range of universities.

For instance student led community projects are already part of a number of courses, for instance in the Geosciences project presented at senate. The students create the project, they design that, they carry out that project. This puts students in charge of creating their own goals, their own content. Obviously there are technologies that make co-creation more possible. But the area that I want to focus on are about assessment.

This exampe is about student partnership in assessment (in Social Policy?). Students met early in the course with academic staff to discuss assessment options, weighting different forms of assessment. Projects, exams, etc. with students able to vote on options/weighting – so not all students got what they wanted. Students welcomed the opportunity of choice, reflection, to discuss those options.

Another example, in the US, enabled students to be involved in the grading criteria. They were able to create or influence the grading criteria, and to reflect back on that process as well.

I also want to talk about social bookmarking. This example is from a Statistics course. Here the lecturer asked students to tag 10 sites related to the course, handed back to professor, then they were presented in the VLE, trends were shown, professor referred back to those examples found within the course. It is surface level to an extent but it is students creating content, influencing the course.. It is a radical shift.

So, what we want to do now is to have some discussion about what these changes mean. We want you in groups to discuss:

– How can you integrate these examples within your work?

– How can new technology enhance this partnership further?

– What support may staff/students need to implement these?

[cue break whilst we discuss]

Comments back from groups:

Group 1) Advanced students, honours levels etc. quite well set up for those broader learning objectives

Group 2) I am teaching on an MSc where students have a choice over the units that they take, the students really thrive in that environment and the students really push themselves and achieve

Group 3) One of the things my colleague Peter Evans is seeing through accreditation for the MSc in Digital Education is a 20 credit course within which students can create their own 5 credit activities, giving students a lot of autonomy within a structure there.

Group 4) We were talking about assessment and how students can engage in that, and anonymity in that process. Getting students to write questions and challenges against which they evaluate their colleagues – particularly talking about Peer Wise

Dash: There is another example with peer assessment, students had to justify not just if they met that criteria, but also to justify why that was the case.

Tanya) One group I sat with was the issue of not all students wanting to assess or be assessed by others. They see the lecturer as having greater authority, that they may not like peer assessment at first.

Group 5) We were also talking about anonymity and tools like Textwall which allows students to share anonymous comments on a wall (like a Twitter wall), also clickers, etc.

Comment) We tried a Twitter wall with one of our large undergraduate classes. It was sort of 50% brilliant and engaged. And 50% really inappropriate. There wasn’t much self-policing.

Group 6) We talked about beaurocratic barriers, getting something through the board… That there is reluctance to change, that perhaps only 5-10% of what you can do can be novel. So it’s how to get the beurocrats who sit on the board to approve something new and innovative. And how do you then pass on the work to the external examiner.

Dash: Luckily we have an assistant principal pretty much responsible for that.

Ian Pirie, assistant principal) I would say that my background is art and design, where we already provide videos, images, etc. to external examiners, so I would say that that can be done. That’s a disciplinary culture issue, and do please talk to me if you meet those sorts of barriers.

Dash: There you go. We are at time but please do come and find Tanya and I about co-creation etc.

“Using e-Portfolios to recognise our student and graduate attributes” – Simon Riley (CMVM) and Prof. Ian Pirie, Asst Principal Learning Developments

I’ll be talking about a number of uses of portfolios in art and in medicine. In both fields portfolios enable students to capture and evidence competencies. Everything is documented in that portfolio. And the students will update and prune, and reflect on that – sometimes we have to stop students from pruning too much! I couldn’t take you into a lecture and talk to you about playing the piano, and an hour later you can play it. You have to assimilate that, to practice and engage, to construct the essential knowledge. That’s the reason portfolios come in to these disciplines.

Portfolios are already well established in Art, Design and Architecture, in Medicine, and in other fields such as engineering, healthcare, etc. And often that is associated with professional competencies and evidencing those.

In Art, Design and Architecture portfolios are central in visual arts education (for ECA that is since 1760). That is from admission to higher education, for further study, for professional purposes. Once someone has committed to study in these subjects, they maintain that portfolio. And already school leavers engage with portfolio concepts of enquiry, reflection, etc.

In 2008 there was a change in submissions, so applications for ECA now run to 7000 applicants for 150 places. The logistics for physical portfolios were impossible. We have moved to digital portfolios. But we have looked at this, checked the robustness, and the digital submissions are assessable in the same way as physical portfolios were, the same decisions are made.

Simon: I’m talking about medicine here. When Ian first showed me that set of slides of those portfolios I thought those were exit rather than entry portfolios. That standard is amazing.

I am talking about medicine here and we are governed by the General Medical Council. They convey their requirements in this document called the “Tomorrow’s Doctors”. I came to this through my running of the “student choice” element of the programme. Students have genuine choice over about 20% as long as it covers skills in the right way. Post graduate students already have a long history of a log book, a portfolio of their work and practice that runs alongside this.

So, the GMC gives us a set of learning objectives. And we have tightly mapped our curriculum into what the GMC requires. We have themes running through the curriculum… And we need to tie themes together in competancy, thematic ways rather than switching all the time. So, how do you do this? Well we did this with eportfolios. This is currently on bespoke VLE system (EEMC). So, what goes in? Well students do case reports on specialist tasks and activities. They do a range of projects and one of the characteristics of Edinburgh is that we use our research rich environment as part of teaching medicine – the students work on research projects, seeking new information, generating their own data sets, etc.

We are also getting students to reflect on their learning, and that is critical. How good are we at doing this? Well we are getting there but there is probably more we could do. And there is that maxim of “see one, do one, teach one” and whilst we’d like to think there are more gaps than that, we do have senior students and members of staff teaching junior colleagues.

There are some other elements to the portfolio – and this is where we are changing things as we move from EEMC to something open source, probably PebblePad. But the parallel strand here is the professional development portfolio – CV, reflection, etc.  If we look at our portfolio here, it looks a lot like Learn (though it is a precursor) but it lists competencies, evidence, etc.

So to give an example here is the SSC2 Group Projects are projects which generate portfolio items they use WordPress, and they are open to potential applicants etc. And the material produced here are absolutely brilliant. They look at novel areas of medicine, they take real ownership, and working with a not very senior colleague they create really excellent materials.

These portfolios capture competencies, they prepare students for professional life after studying, they allow us to assess reflective skills.

Now, as Ian and I put this presentation together, from our two disciplines which seem poles apart… We see that we actually share so much…

Ian: Based on Koh’s model, visualising stimulus, input, action… as a cycle of Action, Creation, Selection, Reflection and all aspects feeding into the eportfolio. That is a shared pedagogy between our subjects. The format of the lecture leaves us unable to understand what the student is learning, what they understand, what is going in… Fundamentally it is the understanding and reflection area where students can find themselves frustrated, wanting better feedback, etc.

ePortfolios have huge potential here but, for a while, our colleagues in England were required to do this. Student didn’t take to them but that is perhaps because they did not understand the benefits of them. When our students move onwards their degree might get them an interview but employers are really looking for everything else, all that stuff that would be in that portfolio. That is what will count for them. And what is really important in the eportfolio is that we really have to properly value each students portfolio and recognise it formally, as well as thinking about how they take that forward, how they make onward use of these portfolios they have spent so much time creating.

Designing for Open- Open Educational Resources and new media for learning – Melissa Highton Director, Learning Teaching and Web Services, IS.

One of the things we have to ensure we do at this institution is to close the feedback loop. And I’m very pleased that I’m able to do some of that. Last year we had a passionate plea from Alex at EUSA about opening up the institution so I’m going to report back on that…

When Alex told us we should be more open as an institution, he said there was an opportunity to open up all learning materials as an ethical issue, as a sustainability issue. The University set up a task group, the OER Short-Life Task Group to explore ways to take forward an OER strategy for the University and to report findings and recommendations to Learning and Teaching Committee. Open Educational Resources are about opening up resources, making them discoverable, reusable, etc. So, we had a very good think about an OER vision for the University of Edinburgh and we proposed three strands that extend the strengths of the university.

Since 2007 a number of institutions have signed up to the Capetown Open Education Declaration (2007) around philanthropy and practice in education. About sharing large collections of rich resources, shared to parts of the world where there are perhaps less. But there is also the issue of how one adopts, adapts, tweaks that material is also important. Often that can be a barrier, unless we understand how we can tweak that material. Or you can find a black market in reuse, where we reuse but try to hide our reuse of others materials…

There are also some pretty strong opinions about publicly funded institutions not sharing materials they have been funded to create, seeing this as a moral issue. But there is also a reciprocity issue – if you take from the internet, you should also give back. But one of the problems of the word “open” is that it has many different meanings… Some thing online is open, some think open is not open until there are no restrictions. But there is a website for this, opendefinition.org, provides a helpful definition:

“Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose”

And that is particularly helpful as it moves away from thinking about open educational resources, towards thinking of our resources in the context of open content more broadly, and to the wider understanding of openness.

For us to share openly we also have to understand what we mean by open. We also need our colleagues, our students, etc. to understand what we mean by open as well… To understand the implications of openness, licensing, sharing and use of online materials – whether those you have found or those that you publish. And this is very much aligned with the University’s mission as a global institution engaging globally.

Creative Commons licensed work are increasing, and these licenses are very relevant to how we use and create and share materials. These licenses were invented within the academy – law faculties from the US and UK looking for new ways to license content for the web. These have been available since 2001, and more varieties since 2007. And these licenses come in different formats – lawyer readable, user readable, but also machine readable. And you can share content with that license attached, which is hugely useful.

Some countries have made legislative commitments to open education, including Scotland and the UK (separate countries in this list, probably because of the varying legal systems). And looking at where these CC-licensed works are published the majority are from North America, any from Europe… So for example we wanted to create some new learning materials on the LGBT experience and looked at how that might be developed, but as we calculated the potential time and cost of that.. and then we found OER resources from a North American university that could be easily adapted at a fraction of the cost and the time. That’s hugely useful for us, and for diversifying our teaching for that course where we felt we had this gap to address.

Open.Ed is a website, a vision, and a strategy with three strands… “for the common good” – teaching and learning materials; “Edinburgh at its best” – showing what we do best; and “Edinburgh’s treasures” – making a significant number of our unique learning materials available.

In terms of managing assets the licensing on materials make it possible to do this stuff. The license to adapt and change allows us internally to adapt and change materials, to store and keep and move and share and reuse. Without those types of licenses we risk great unsustainability. And Edinburgh has a great tradition of sharing – think of the common stair. So the license lets us keep material clear, available, clean, sharable, etc.

Lunch (where there’ll be some posters to explore) then Labs/practicals chaired by Marshall Dozier (this is where I may be at meetings and you may wish to switch to watching #elearninged) including:

 “Designing teaching spaces for the 21st century learner: The story of the nostalgic Dad and the horrified Son” – Victoria Dishon (School of Engineering), Stephen Dishon (IS Learning Spaces Technology)

DYNAMED: Student Led Development of a Dynamic Media Library for the R(D)SVS – Brian Mather and Rob Ward – (CMVM)

Experience with Cogbooks pilot on personalised learning. – Eduardo Serafin (Geosciences) and Mark Wetton (IS)

Offshoots and Outputs session chaired by Marshall Dozier:

CMC Vellore India partnership – online MSc in Family Medicine – Liz Grant (CMVM) and Jo Spiller (IS)

Digital tools for lighting education” – Ola Uduku and Gillian Treacy, (ECA)

Research, Teaching and Learning” – Michael Begg (IS)

 And I’m back… just in time for most of Sue Rigby’s talk… 

“Developing the Vision for 21st century learning” – Prof. Sue Rigby, VP Learning and Teaching

We have come up with a six point vision for where we want to go with learning and teaching. This has gone to every academic department, and to every support unit, within the university which we are bringing together our bottom up vision for learning and teaching. And I am going to talk about some of the ways that technology that will enable us to do… But this is about technology as enabler in learning and teaching, not just about use of technology.

1. A portfolio approach for an unpredictable future – making the most of the Scottish degree

That longevity of degrees can be a real benefit of our degrees – longer exposure for our students that benefits potential employers, novel approaches… But we want that portfolio of content to also reflect much more dynamic approaches to learning, a portfolio if learning styles.

2. Giving students agency to create their own learning – students at the centre, not degree programmes

This is about giving students the space physically and digitally to follow their own journeys, to craft their own narrative… They may do the same degree but have very different experiences… Every students experience are different but there are commonalities that matter here of skills, or experience. Things like the Wikipedia Editathon in ILW is about learning what makes a good Wikipedia entry, what warrants inclusions…

You also see things like one of our undergraduates working with the Girl Guides to explain physics and meterology to teenagers with common materials – and that reached many girl guides.

3. Extend learning beyond the traditional knowledge-centred course – e.g. international experiene, service learning, self-defined projects, entrepreneurship

As a scientist you can have a clear idea of the core of your skills and experience. By extending knowledge as undermining that centre, but as adding to that corona… So a colloquial example – chemistry students go on placement as students, but come back as chemists, actually doing their subject. And often that sort of experience isn’t in our course descriptions, and it matters that that is captured.

We also see students from civil engineering working on the rails – so they understand the work before supervising others. We have students giving TEDx talks – those presentation skills are hugely valuable.

And we can open up opportunities online, and our community online. And encourage and recognise that our students can be creative – students are sometimes more daring online than in our physical university spaces.

4. Every student a researcher or practitioner – joined at the hip to a research group from year 1, offered a higher degree place on attainment of a good degree

If we don’t do that, why should our students come here rather than to a teaching led institution? We need our research to be central to the learning and teaching practice…

So here we have a box of shells… Our student found a collection of old shells to exemplify evolution and the work of Charles Darwin… This was first class work but

5. Course design for 21st century learners – appropriate use of technology and student centred learning

Cue a plug for Fiona Hale’s Learning Design Project, which will clarify the requirements, both for IS and University partners, for learning spaces and technologies.

An example to share here – the Vet students are contributing to a virtual anatomy museum… you can help to break the boundaries of the university, and of what we share, and

6. Focus on multiple learning styles and learning for life – at least one online course taken by all students, explicit reflection on learning style and capacity

And that’s starting with Dave’s sustainability module, and an online big data module. And there will be more. But we also have our MOOCs… and we can start about aggregating MOOCs into our existing courses, by using them as learning objects, or to be used in credit bearing units.

So, I wanted to give you a context… What I would suggest is that we have to experiment for a while. When we find things that work, we have to bring them into the mainstream. We’ve been good at experimenting. I think we can be even quicker and even bolder, but also bring this into the mainstream!

Q&A

Q1) Do you really think that large scale face to face teaching is entirely dead in the future?

A1) No, but we should aim for it. And we can keep them when this is the best possible pedagogical model… At the moment it works the other way around…

Q1) How would you host an event like this without these big spaces?

A1) But all of us have started to give presentations at conferences that I am not attending – virtual presentations. If there is a sliding scale we are stuck at the lecture end… I’m saying push the other way… and then find the right place – probably in the middle… Flipped classrooms worth well

Q2) Student views on this?

A2) We had schools ask students. And also workshops through EUSA… If you give students questions, they want what they have… Often predicated on response of their schools… So more conservative schools create more conservative students… But if you preface questions with ideas and alternatives, students do present new ideas, they are interested in new approaches.

Q3) Our students come from very different backgrounds. Some will be really used to having some agency…

A3) We have a somewhat damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation… Some come in from high tech environments and our teaching looks comparatively old fashioned. Others come from very strict, hierachichal, traditional places and we have to move students along from that. So we have to scaffold students in induction, in programme design… Really careful induction I think. BUt at the moment we are already moving towards a place where our early years education at the University is probably more conservative than what our incoming students are used to from school…

Q4) We’ve talked about community a lot today. We have to understand the importance of a large lecture, networking, serendipitous meetings of people… And we have to understand how best we utilise and capture that.

A4) I agree with that… But we have to understand that as part of the purpose of the lecture. Student halls used to be about housing, with accidental communities. Over the last few years Pollock Halls have actively supported and encouraged the building of community… So if we want a lecture for that purpose, lets say it as that and that we use the time in that way… And make sure that that is what happens in those spaces.

Conference closing – Wilma Alexander, Convenor, eLearning@ed Forum

I just want to say some huge thank yous to all my colleagues on the elearning@ed committee… And I’d like to thank you all for coming and to all our speakers for there fantastic contributions to the day. And we now have time for you to meet each other, to explore the posters further, ask questions, etc.

And with that, I’m done blogging for the day. Remember that you can catch tweets from the sessions I couldn’t make on the hashtag from today, #elearninged. 

Apr 102014
 

Welcome – Jeff Hayward

Jeff is noting how this is the twelfth annual elearning@ed event, and that’s a really notable length of time for an internal event like this.

There’s a real buzz about technology enhanced learning, eLearning, or whatever you want to call it. There seems to be a stepping up a gear and a real sense of fun and creativity here. Lots of rethinking of pedagogies, and of teaching and learning and the use of technology in this. And I think we’ve tended to do it that way around, and kept a solid idea of skills that students need as they go out into the world.

I also want to thank all of you working on MOOCs. And I wanted to thank all of you who are involved in the online masters programmes. I think we are quite unusual to have so many of these, so fully across the university. As the first phase of the DEI programme comes to an end we are well on our way to the 10,000 student target. Now that’s the good bit. But I know our students would like greater consistency in our use of technology, and technology a cross the programme.

Part of the stepping up a gear has been the advertising of senior posts in online learning. We include online learning in the job descriptions of senior staff in schools, of senior management, and that’s really significant. We are seeing schools who haven’t been involved in DEI yet, are coming forward now. We have ambitious plans for investment in digital education. And we have recently formed a new division, headed by Melissa Highton, within Information services to take this forward. And MVM teaching and learning technology team are joining IS so we will have a big experienced team taking this forward. So a lot of excitement and fun looking forward!

Keynote: Cargo cult teaching- the importance of authentic practice – Ross Galloway

Thinking about what authenticity might look like I felt there were three key areas to authenticity: authentic practice by instructors; authentic practice by students – particularly thinking about what students will go forward with in their careers; authentic practice in educational research.

I want to start with the notion of authentic practice by instructors. Here we have our classic 12th C picture of a lecture… And that’s pretty much looks like lectures now…. Very passive audience…

But there are alternatives as well. But there are movements around active learning, group learning. Problem based learning where students are more active, more engaged. So another picture of a lecture theatre here shows students working in groups, directing their attention across the row, not to the front.

Why should we care about how we teach? Here’s some compelling data from physics (hake, am. J. Phys. 1998) which shows evaluation of a number of introductory physics courses. It shows “gain” – the difference between pre and post testing, showing any improvement. Normalised gain of 0 means people have learned nothing. Normalised gain of 1 means they have learnt everything. Passive learning doesn’t show much over 0.3 gain. Active engagement varies but sits much higher in the 0.5 the 0.6 and above. So I will be bold and say that active learning is what works. The evidence is there. Surely we should be in a golden age for active learning then?

Surveys in the US did show 87% awareness of evidence based reformed approach. And almost half used them. Slightly lower in the UK… But still good… Except there is a catch….

For physics in the US more than a third of instructors who try these new approaches, subsequently discontinue (Henderson etc al 2012). In biology instructors report that they don’t see better results? What happens? Well we hear instructors saying “I tried it, it didn’t work!”.

So I want to talk a bit about Cargo Cults. During the war cargo planes were dropping materials and supplies. Locals also benefitted. But the war ended and the planes stopped. So locals missed that, they knew you needed watchtowers, then planes would come… But they didn’t. And this is a real phenomenon….

And that’s a bit like what has been happening with these new teaching approaches. So in physics 1/4 to 1/2 of instructors deviate significantly from established design of evidence-based teaching approaches (Henderson and dancy 2009). And a wide variation in actual classroom practices for the “same” approach (Taylor and finkelstein?). It’s like those wooden control towers… It looks like they’ve done the right thing but it’s not going to work the same way…

So an example. Peer instruction… You might pose a question. Let students think and vote, let students discuss amongst themselves, students revote, whole class discussion, confirm and summarise. That’s the evidence based approach.

But what happens in reality in some classes is people miss out the “students think and vote” so you never get that marker in the sand. Asking the question first means you have thought and committed. So you have to confront why there is disagreement. You want to engage and resolve conflict, reform existing conceptions. Skipping it means students votes come from a very different place. How many of those skipping that stage don’t even know why that step is there?

The other part which Is often missed out is the confirm and summarise stage. Students can get partway through learning, be developing ideas. But that confirmation and summarising is really important,it firms up what the correct approach is and why, is confirms what has been learned.

So, what to do? Well don’t blame the instructor! “Us versus them is not constructive” (dancy and Henderson 2010). Instructors are often not hugely aware of learning theory but that doesn’t mean they are unbelievers, that they aren’t open to change even if they do use traditional methods.

Avid don’t tell instructors what to do – an informed partnership works better (Henderson and dancy 2007). We are instructors because we are experts, we know what we are talking about. And there are key pragmatic reasons that some practices are hard to do – room layout can make a huge difference for instance.

So what do We do?

Classroom approach needs to correspond to the authentic practices of the educational reform. Implementation needs to be supported.

So that’s the polemic, now some examples. And starting with a failed experiment in reformed approaches. I can talk about this failure because it is mine!

So for undergraduate physics we have an assignment marking rubric. It works well, it’s supported by research. We look for techniques that experts use. For instance for mathematical execution and final answers we explicitly include “evidence of meaningful evaluation of answers”. So we want students to check over, assess, confirm things are correct. So, it makes sense. Super. Expert like.

What happens in practice? Students do this for equations like e=mc2. Where there is no point of doing that! Or they fail to do something in the equation and note a discrepancy. But don’t go back and recheck it. So they evaluated it but did not actually used it as a tool. They got so very close!

What’s the problem? From an expert perspective you do this stuff automatically… You work and correct as you go. But students see it as a hoop to leap through. It’s not useful or effective.

It’s not enough to encourage students to do what we do. The practice must be authentic within the context of the students activity – right there at that moment. It must be real. If it’s not it’s just that hoop to jump to. So I will take these things out of the play context, focus them in actual useful practices.

And that last section. Authentic practice in educational research. A happy successful example. Let’s go back to that peer instruction process. Wouldn’t it be nice to close the loop, to feed results into how we write questions. Why do this? Well voting responses highlight some concepts that are easily shifted – big gain. But sometimes we see something where the gain is very small pre and post discussion etc. how do we find out what happens here? Well we use smart pens. They give real insight into what is going on. These pens digitise and include microphones, captures pen strokes and audio recording in sync. I don’t listen in, that’s not fair… But I get to see process data. So this technology told us what went wrong in this question with terrible gain…

Firstly it was a negative question so confusing doubles. And there were lots of confusions about the symbols using in the question – which isn’t important. The concepts are the key focus or should be. And the question saw students focusing on irrelevant features. And symbols activate formula-based approach. These are superficial but divert students from talking about the core concept. I learned a lot here. I do walk the rom but students can feel inhibited so this technology really helps.

So we rewrote the question. We added an image to set up the idea of what was taking place. It’s no longer negative. And we took out symbols. But numbers still had to be here. And we retested this approach. And we went from gain of 0.09 to 0.51. That’s a great result. We did this for a number of other questions, revising question based on insights. Some saw modest improvements, some substantial improvements.

The smart pen technology is highlY effective for observing student process. It was embedded in a really authentic experience, the real classroom setting, real problems students were solving. A really authentic experience.

So, authenticity. Are we being authentic as instructors? Are students playing at being students or can we make their experience authentic and real and relevant to them. And how can we ensure when we look at educational research it’s relevant and authentic to us, to our teaching context.

Q&A

Q: thank you so much Ross. I was thinking about what you said about failure. You admitted something didn’t work. You talked about constraints for instructors… How can I encourage instructors to try something that might not actually work, that might be a failure, to engage and enjoy that experience regardless
A: I think there is no easy answer to that. But, welts all relative. Even when reformed practices don’t work well they are usually better than what went before. Didactic passive lectures work alarmingly poorly. Students often learn from books, from friends, from the libraries but take little from the classroom in that form. My practice could certainly be better but it’s an iterative approach. Even if you try it only once or twice a semester, to learn from something appropriate and authentic to their context. Incorporate small pieces and build from three,

Q: what data do you get from the smart pens?
A: you can see an animated PDF of line moving and audio effectively, it’s a proprietary format. Students transcribed, or looked for keywords, coded independently to make sure similar. That’s tricky actually. That takes some time to do but if I see two thirds hung up on symbols, that’s probably significant.

Q: I like to throw the messiness at my students, all the ambiguities. So if you clean up that question are you removing those?
A: I do like those ambiguities but I include those a bit differently. I have my students read ahead. We focus on fundamental concepts as most peoples fundamental concept of the universe is actually different from physics and deceptively difficult to shift. We do embrace ambiguity but not in lectures, in workshops where we have four or six tutors around and we ask big real world ambiguous questions. So questions like “how many street lights are there in edinburgh” – a question to think about what they can see, what they can estimate… The technically gifted students hate this. At school they are rewarded for the right answers. Physicists get employed because they have the skills to think “well I can see 12 lights from here so if I think about how many there might be across the city based on that…” to think around the question, not to have a single right answer.

Q: I am trying to take the same approach online. But we are having difficulty with students response to this approach. These are a mixed mature student group from ten different countries and significant portion ask “where is the lecture?!” Have you had this?
A: we have had some responses like that. We ask students in teed back surveys about these formats versus other classes, about what works and what doesn’t. Overwhelmingly they embrace it and write very nuanced responses. 85-90% like it! a few are neutral! and a tiny but very civically core don’t like it. For them though it’s about explaining why, the evidence base for this approach. I don’t see it much in my class but in the literature there are reports that students think it’s instructors being lazy. Not true of course, it is more work and you absolutely have to be on top of your game. But we do have the issue of students being very conservative. Every year we have a few students who only want to study like school. Don’t want to do coursework, workshops etc. exceedingly risky for them. So you have to convince the students to engage here. One thing I do in lectures is ask students to speak to someone who doesn’t agree with them – little happens, then I say “and if you can’t find anyone I will talk to you” – and that does the trick!

ePortfolios, ACJ and reflections – David Pier CMVM

Our programme, ChM are surgical programmes devolved with the royal college of surgeons. So we will be talking about process we use at the milestone between specialist training and practice. W try to get our surgical trainees, who have been in raining for many years, to go from “how could you treat this condition” and instead to weigh up evidence based approach to “how will you treat this patient?”. These guys have a lot of core knowledge, but we are looking at the application of this knowledge.

And these guys have lots of surgical retaining but they may not have had any research training, to assess that evidence. They will have some skills but we have this academic skills module looking at evidence based practice in surgery, finding the evidence, assessing ones own practice and implementing change, critical appraisal, non-technical skills. We really want them to think how they as a leader can impact how things happens. We teach some of these skills through information, particularly through discussion boards but we also wanted to ensure there was assessment. And that assessment had to be e,needed in their day to day work, be real vent, and be based on wreak every day cases. So we came to the conclusion that we wanted to use a reflective eportfolio – which would be very well aligned to the types of portfolios used professionally. So these could see something in theatre, reflect upon it. We wanted to be as reflective as possible. Students can upload thoughts to VLE into a private area. We had some requirements but the main thing was to get thoughts down as they happen, to put as much in as possible.

What we hoped was that they would capture lots of events. They witness a huge number of events, they are in surgery every day. And they may see a different or new technique or practice or experience. Then we wanted to reflect on this event they had recorded. Then to look for the evidence, see how that relates. And hopefully that will lead to a set of objectives… Which may just be about doing more reading in the area…. And then there may be some follow up, some reflection back to those objectives. This is a two or three semester assessment. And we hoped that actually this could go further… There might be a gap in the evidence… Perhaps you design your own scientific study for instance… Could potentially use this inn the research project at the end of the programme. It has happened to some extent but not quite all the way through.

So for the reflective eportfolio we wanted to make it organic but there had to be some sort of structure. So we gave five categories to use – can be swapped around – but gives structure. These are: quality improvement and patient care, research and experimental design, teaching skills, self-learning, and ?)

So we asked students to go and do this. Some took it up but some were very skeptical. The personal tutor system has helped a lot here. When you tell them that you are already doing all of these processes – this is just a structure to use – that does click with most of them.

We obviously have to mark this, and we have six marking categories and they don’t match one to one. Self disclosure, critical analysis, evidence based analysis, learning objectives, teaching and learning, research principles. These are based on gmc guidance, experience from Undergraduate portfolios, form the evidence. We mark across all of these.

So, in the first hear that we did this we had some initial confusion. This was around the time the Adaptive Comparative Judgement (ACJ) tool appeared – a tool for comparing a pair of pieces of work (and selecting which is better). and we thought this would be brilliant for peer assessment, to leave comments, to find how their work fits with others, to understand the best one. The rank order is the only measure that comes out of the system. There was as slight hiccough. We wanted to students to mark all the examples. And we wanted tutors to mark them all as well to compare. But it didn’t quite work – both sets of marks were combined together. But this did help students look at lots of examples without having to deal with marking criteria. Students mostly found it useful (ranked it ok to very useful). About 70% of students tried it out. Those students did seem to do better in summative assessment. Now they are self selecting so that might be a bit biased, but it does seem to help.

The second time around we made some changes, we used exemplars from the first year, we did some peer assessment and asked students to assign a grade, and let them know our grade. And where a notable gap – where students don’t quite get it – between those we have been able to offer extra support. In the past we have had students concerned or not understanding where their marks sit. But that peer assessment has helped a lot so they can see how they sit against others. Students have questioned marks to tutors also mark and often that is very similar, meaning students are more accepting of the peer marks. We did reduce the narratives required… Students hadn’t quite understood that. And gave a word count. Posts got wordy… So having to reedit strange themed the writing and kept posts concise.

Largely students enjoy this. Even those that don’t love it accept that they need to do this as a consultant and do find it valuable. And many are now using in their own clinical practice building on this experience.

And just to end some acknowledgements and thanks to Paula Smith, helen Cameron, Ewan Harrison.

Q&A

Q: how do you manage to keep it authentic from students point of view. Student reflections from students point of view, and personal take. Does looking at each other’s work mean mastering the art of producing outcomes that perform well but are not authentic.
A: interesting question. But there is a right way to do this. We want students to take this and becomes. Better student. Maybe they do a presentation, and see audience not engaging, so want to make it better. Students commenting May question the evidence, suggest ways to do that… All of the experiences they have are relevant. You just try to focus them on particular key issues and find places for improvement. The experiences a re what they are finding day to day. Very authentic in that sense. But there is a system to help them go through, to see progression.

Digital vs “real” – Lindy Richardson, ECA
I am from edinburgh college art so we’re are teaching students about design. I wanted to talk about the difference between learning about design from real experience, or learning through a screen. My students would love to do everything through the screen!

I want to give you three examples we have given to our students to balance the experience of real design and the virtual elements of design,

So the first project was called THE CAST. We wanted to make sure that students engaged with real materials. They could bring smart phones, cameras, but also sketchbooks and materials to record the experience. So we went on a bus trip to a derelict modernist building. Full of beautiful tactile experiences. One of the problems with technology is that we don’t have that haptic technology yet!

So this building is concrete, it has burnt wood, it has graffiti, it has moss growing in it. It’s fantastic. And we asked them to record the experience, and not just with their camera – so taking sketches, rubbing, touching things, smelling things, noting what they might do with materials back in the studio. And then we mixed students up – different courses and differnt disciplines, all I’m workshops… This confused them a bit! They are printing in the fabric studio, they are making fabric formed concrete, working with hot glass, and engaging with and touching and examining these experiments. Sharing all this stuff too – they all want to prove they did this so they update Facebook or twitter. But they were physically together and talking and collaborating. It was so exciting. And it was wonderful for the staff – to have people in our department who had no idea what then are doing but up for experimenting. So they made 3d bags out of concrete. The materials were informing the design. The materials led here, and non soecialists pushing innovation through challenging preconceived expectations. Can dividing the tasks to experts inhibit what takes place?

So we have images here… Glass burning into the textile. Playful experiments scarring the concrete. And that’s brilliant. The expert wouldn’t have thought of that!

But let’s bring this back… Students have to be ready for the real world. So we get them in the studio designing repeating wallpaper… Create handrawn motifs, full scale designs in repeat manually using photocopies and drawing. Then photoshop workshops in repeats. Then work on colour separation.

What did students learn here? They learned how to create a half drop by hand which really helped me to understand the process before learning how to do it in photoshop – where the repeats can get very square.

Another learned how to make a half drop repeat by hand and it was less manageable than by digital means… Their finished wallpaper may not have looked as strong but the evidence was very strong…

And another found both new and found both helpful – and evidenced it well.

The thing here is that we have all these students with different learning styles. And it’s so important to understand the colour separation process, and what can go wrong. Ding that be hand makes a huge difference.

So we get students to manually and digitally create prints. Photoshop can really lack fluidity, but with experience of the manual process the digital pieces can end up more fluid…

Our students are amazing with their thumbs! They are skilled in some ways to we are loosing traditional skills as well. I am very conscious that I go to teach a technique. They will youtube it, try it once, and then never again. We don’t perfect, or get the nuances. W miss out because of that screen.

So… The 45 bus route project. Students had to travel the whole route and to work as a group… We’ve had a chat about group work already. It can cause a lot of friction… Students try to get out of it with Facebook, Instagram. Snapchat, email, blogging, phoning… But face to face interaction championed in the end. One made bread, one made jam. They met to make and do and prepare presentation. The blog is brilliant, I’ll make sure that’s shared with Wilma to pass on!

Now we’ve all been sitting paying attention to the front… I want a little hands on authentic experience, to chat with each other as they do this…. Hopefully you can chat to your neighbours. So I will teach you all to finger knit! My attic is full of fabric and wool and things! So I have wound up a ball of wool for each of you. Take one and we’ll all try it….


E is for experience – rob thomas

I think I am the case study here! I am relatively new to the full time academic world… When I first came to the university is was introduced to this term “eLearning” and I’m not entirely sure I understand what eLearning actually means yet. E, I think, is for experience. Everything else I think adds values to that experience, and adds value to that experience. In my trying and career I never went to unversity. I did my first degree with the open university in a pre digital age, everything was handwritten including the feedback. Very positive. But the highlight for me was the week long summer school where you had an opportunity to reconnect with reality, with yourself… And got a chance to play with things. It was an incredibly important moment. And I think it’s something that could be missed in eLearning, a critical element that cannot take place electronically. (Rob notes that he’s still attached to his finger knitting. It’s adding some swagger to his style though! )

So… Looking at a milk carton that has beef cows on it… It wasn’t authentic… It hadn’t been checked. There was an issue of credibility here… And looking at the notorious “bingo!” Poster after the budget there was a significant error of judgement there. A real issue of authenticity…

From my experience outside of academia much or learning, training and assessing is a person mediated process. We don’t learn from digital materials.

Whether organisational learning, individual in structure or evaluation, the central mode is the direct experience of those involved. Organisational learning can be a process… But organisations often don’t learn, they end up repeating mistakes in a loop.

Digital tools aid communication and information, to most learning is through doing. They are means to process and manage information. The learning is about the physical or the behavioural doing.

Life is authenticated by the self. Experience is self authenticating. If wea re caught up in rights and wrongs and assessment, we continue to believe in what someone tells us. There is a disconnect… When that person leaves academia that person needs to be able to understand their own authentic experience. It’s a very sensitive idea… Authenticity is spatial and temporal here. Things change.

I mostly teach online… We try to make it organic, to make them think of the content to an extent. Ideally when a course has been taught, the materials would self destruct. Don’t keep the traces (other than for the external examiner). We should be forced to rethink all over again. Just because we think we have authenticated something once, doesn’t mean it’s still useful one year on…. Can be so far from meaningfulness and relevant. Bit of a hangover from powerpoints and lecture notes. Should be forced to start again.

Out in the real world there is work experience. Some universities and colleges do sandwich courses (just 9.5% in 2002-3, 7.2% in 2009-10 of full time cohorts did this) And the Wilson Review found there were huge advantages. But it’s hard work to provide that experience, for industry, for employers. So it’s hard to do but gang disconnect is really important. So we have to to think about how we can better prepare students in vocational courses to be empowered to understand the workplace, the subject, and to learn about organisations. And those soft bits, how to work with people. Group work for an hour is fine but working with a diverse group for a year is a very different beast in terms of what you learn, how you relate content and how you project yourself in a team environment.

I think the general approach that didactic lectures is dead. Like online material can just kill it. And there is also an opportunity for students to step up and express an opinion, and encourage students to do this. In the real world that is how people learn. This is the medium by which information is shared, or dissected, or understood. The flipped classroom is effectively the way we learn in industry. Here we are implying this is a new concept, been going on for centuries in the outside world…

So individuals learn from colleagues, from mistakes. I think we need to allow people to make mistakes. To move away from grading and negative impacts of mistakes. To include training. To experience the outcomes of organisational learning. Organisations learn from consequences…

However lessons learned belong to the organisation but are held by the individual… And individuals leave… Which is why organisations end up repeating mistakes…

Blended learning tends to be the model for industry. Grown organically. Organisations have employed blended learning for some significant time.

The traditional project management cycle are: problem, design, implement, monitor, evaluate, adjust and go back to the problem. A cycle. But you can add in “innovate” between monitor and evaluate. That can feed up to a “new problem”, and some “abandon” at the point of evaluation – a cycle within the cycle essentially. Industry tends to abandon unproductive activity. And abandon unuseful problems or ideas when no longer valued. A speedy way to work.

A couple of examples… Logical framework (log frame): projects have objectives, they have means of verification, imdicators, assumptions, outputs and lessons. Those assumptions could be things we. Know but students don’t. Or assumptions students make that need to be addressed. And the important part here is how we learn from those lessons. So many discoveries that can be used.

When I joined the university last year the were performance and development reviews… A system that evaluates and makes you accountable… This seemed the norm for me so I didn’t understand some colleagues reticence. This is a key human resource management tool, it’s for your benefit to exploit…

So I will leave you with a T.S. Elliot quote “where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information”.

Q&A

Q: why is abandonment different from adjustment
A: adjustment is you still working towards the same goal. Abandonment means a whole new goal is persued!

Networked Scholars and Authentic Influence? – Bonnie Stewart, University of Prince Edward Island
It is a big honour to be at the university of edinburgh, particularly because the university’s reputation for digital education is well known in my field. But also because my name is Stewart so it’s lovely to be in Scotland!

Now there is a question mark in my title to raise this as a question. How many in the room use twitter? (Quite a lot of us do). Now ther at cliches that circulate. But there are ways to use twitter beyond celebrity. My work looks at twitter and scholars. And I think twitter is a space for networked scholarship for us as scholars. With pedagogies… But what does it mean to be authentic in these networks, particularly in the scholarly ways.

The question of influence is a complex equation. Traditionally in institutional worlds is that teeny group that understands your work in that instiution, and we have outsiders, external markers, or the journal you publish in… Where you went to school, the last grant you had… And all of a sudden things like twitter come into that mix. Both concepts centre around reputation, albeit in very different ways. When you are present and active in spaces like twitter you are creating an identity position.

Willinsky 2010 says that in an academic world scholars are taught to understand reputation with some subtlty and depth.

Now, what am I doing here? In another country? Well I’m a graduate student. I have twenty years experience as an educator, early experience with MOOCs. But my twitter profile is probably a major reason I am here. This is a parallel identity really…

So I want to talk about authenticity in networked scholarship and how you perceive it in the world you live in. These people on screen are people I work with, whose books I read, who read my blog… They are the public sphere in which I speak and build my reputation, and I am part of how they build theirs.

Online networks enable different forms of identity legitimacy, and authenticity. There is the scholarly world, and the what people ate for lunch on twitter world. I study the overlap, the place where higher education is changing.

The fire hydrant is a great metaphor for information. There is abundance. We have moved from paper texts to a world of persistent, replicatable, abundance of information. How many of you teach? (Many of us), how many of you let students have devices out in class? (A lot of us). That’s happily higher than I sometimes expect. Our students can have Wikipedia at hand with more information than we could ever have.

And we have a real changing educational culture. Public and institutional values have been changing. Public values have moved to a more market value or vision of the university. It’s a messy mix and intersection of open and closed systems, of knowledge security and knowledge abundance…
And there is increasing pressure to go online – to engage with the terrible MOOC monster!

Within this networks are one way in which the channels of abundance can be managed. It is hard to try to take everything in from the fire hydrant of information. If we don’t have ways to structure and understand that information we will quickly be overwhelmed. Traditionally we had gatekeepers to knowledge based around institutions. They remain useful but many are not within those spaces, many are not allowed to speak in those spaces. So many use these open online channels.

Networks are not just online or offline. Not binaries here. If you have families you will have complex and different relationships with each individuals. Networks operate in the same way. We already have networks and literalise for dealing with them. T our institutions do not have ore existing literalise to deal with them. See yesterday’s LSE blog headline for instance – about the lack of reward structures within the institutions for public engagement. And my work looks at this as a matter of literacies.

So if we. See the marketoonist.com social network adoption cartoon for something on this,networks require time to understand what counts, what’s useful. In order to succeed in networks the price of admission is that you have to create a public identity. If you don’t have that centre to connect to, people cannot connect. That public identity can be confusing. It’s not about the tech or getting stuff online, its about building a different identity, creating those ways of being and of building relationships. Networked identities are multiplicitous and faceted.

I’m conducting a small ethnography right now. I have fourteen participants and eight exemplars who have agreed to let Bonnie show their profile to others to ask questions. And I did three months of participant observation on twitter and blogs and ten interviews about how they make sense of their networked participation.

The classic media story is about people reading more of your stuff – see pat thompson and Inger from Thesis whisperer’s recent paper – but it’s not just about dissemination.

I have three junior scholars or ohd students here, they don’t have big voices in their institution. They have used blogs and twitter to establish a presence, to share career and academic challenges.

If you see someone on twitter and they are quite formal and only talking about their work, and they are probably quite new. That’s not how we chat. We talk about other stuff – sushi and cake, and aren’t those nice boots. Ambient relationality between people. And twitter allows people to speak back to academia and to speak from the margins of academia. Whilst our academic policies are changing you can still be the only disabled person in your department , or the only queer person, or the only person of colour… An connecting to peers elsewhere has real value there…

Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times lamenting the lack off public scholars. He often does. People spoke back on twitter to point out that they are there, they just may not be of the lofty stature to get from attention… And twitter gives you a voice out, and from further afield…

But…

The is real concern that institutions will try to control and contain these activity. The university of Kansas put in a policy to contain what they say on twitter, regardless of academic freedom, regardless of tenure.

And Alice tiara, a peer of danah boyd, feels that the more quoted or well known she is, the less candid she can be…

And there is a big signal to noise filters. I get ten or fifteen articles each week that look amazing on twitter. But if I expand them all I could never finish my research!

And positioning fatigue can be time consuming, complex, and really problematic. And sometimes identity can seem to get in the way of each other…

And sometimes immersion can be required. Tweets from a conference talking about how it’s hard to “get” twitter without full immersion in the space, in those relationships.

In terms of social media being a signal that is fully immersed… Well it’s not happening and might not ever. And I’m trying to see how to signals can come in, so I’m looking at literacies for understanding academic networked publics. Institutions tend to be product focused, about mastery, bounded by time/space, hierarchical ties, plagiarism, authority in role – and everyone knows what that role signifies. In the public sphere of networks the individuals actual works factors much more than your role. For the institution the audience is the institution and the academy. In the public social sphere the audience can be the world…

So, authenticity. There is a lot that circulates in public networks around influence there is snake oil. We have yo be wary. And the word “authentic” can be dangerous in digital contexts. For many people authentic means real, and not on the computer. And even for those of us looking at what it means to do authentic digital world, the word authentic suggests a binary. So what is synthetic work online? What does it mean to do synthetic education? We all encounter the cultural narratives where teaching online is perceived as synthetic in and of itself. Keeping those naming a and binaries open is important.

One of the keys of being authentic online for me, is showing your work. Showing the logic of where you got, and how you got there, and citing as you go, and credits ideas, then you are more likely to be taken up as authentic. Even if you are blogging you may want traditional citations. You should, credit a conversation on twitter that triggered the thought. In networks we also need something to fasten onto. Transparency is key.

Metrics. The numbers that track your performance and participation. Tweets, followers, etc…. They are not meaningful. You can buy followers. Not common in education… I used to circulate in the blogging world and I’d meet bloggers who started six months previously with 60k followers… Signalled that’s what they were into.

Now I will show some exemplars. David White (@daveowhite) people looked at his profile and thought maybe it didn’t look exciting, but saw he was at Oxford, so they thought maybe they should follow him. But he tries to show more in his profile. He signals a joke in his bio – “the “o” is hitchcockian” (a North by northwest reference). This is playful. He’s doing visible identity work. As individuals we are really not used to doing visible identity work beyond the age of 24 really. You have to in networks. It takes courage to do that.

Looking at Audrey Watters profile! she does lots of identity work. She has a playful picture obscuring her face a bit. She links to her site, she calls herself an author – traditional credibility. And the big thing people note is her 21k followers. What that means, particularly when she follows fewer people… And note she follows almost 2000 people, she’s not broadcasting and following no one, she is networking. And she tweets a lot. About 21k tweets. She’s contributing. She has credibility… Now the numbers don’t tell us if she is entertaining or if it’s the quality of her work. I would guess both. But those number lend credibility.

Now Valerie Lopes at university of Toronto has a simple profile and bio, no background picture. Not massive follower count, fairly equal number of followers and people she follows. Her focus seems to be on her main role to she tweets a lot and has credible. Audrey doesn’t have an institution, she’s a freelance journalist. And dave uses twitter as a parallel research space to his institutional space.

If you see someone following a lot of people, tweeting a lot, pushing out stuff about products or projects…

At NLC 2014 Terry-Lynn talked about “technologies alone are not going to create mobile practices. Fluencies of navigating scale, negotiating openness, way finding, and curation”. The more you leave traces of your work and connections, the more you make sense of it and show credibility. Curation also matters. If you get overwhelmed by twitter, shut it down for a bit, come back to it and them manage it.

Maha Bali just published Bonds of difference: illusions of inclusion – hybrid pedagogy. She is in Egypt and I met her in a MOOC, a group that came together really in Facebook. It feels likea. Global conversation. T in this article she and an author from, I think, India say that yes, this is global and super but we really still need to think about the power relations here. Networks open up the power relations of the institutions. Hunt networks can continue power relations of sexism, racism, ableism. We always have to think about the power relations and who has a voice in networks.

I won’t make you use networks but we need to learn and keep learning to read networks, institutions need to keep learning, to understand what is authentic contribution, and what may not be.

Q&A

Q: I was interested in your slide with a sort of binary between the institution and the individual. And I’m thinking about staff having issues with negotiating that space, navigating having a public role in the networked sphere. And the balancing act for supporting students to balance that sphere. Do you have questions from your research to negotiate an area where we ourselves may lack expertise?
A: those institutional and network literacies are binaries in a way but they already interact. I think we still need institutional literacies, that’s really a space where we need reflection. A way to see what we already do and not leave those behind, but to learn new literacies as well. And in power terms institutions have a crucial role in keeping vibrant spaces for education. But we have to recognise that institutions adna be hide bound…. I’d like to think of ourselves as almost code switching – knowing when to call on the reserves and power of the institutions, and when to look out to the public sphere for what it does well. I would be concerned to see us only on one side of that screen. For my teaching – bachelors of ed students online, and offline but mostly blended. Sometimes my students are very institutionalised and concerned with moving beyond the social contract. Sometimes they need me to be fully literate in what the institution can provide to support. Sometimes they need me to be literate in networks and what that can offer them professionally. Depends so much on I divas students or groups of students and how they see their role.

Q: I’m sure many of us are guilty of saying what we do on our twitter profiles where we say what we do then adding “views are my own” for a mixed personal and professional account…
A: it can be difficult to have multiple accounts. Depends partly on an individuals role and status within the institution is. Avid what can be shared. I do not have my institutional role on my twitter profile. When I started on twitter I was on maternity leave. I have changed images but not text (much). I basically trade that freedom for the lack of credibility or affiliation. I’m ok with that trade off. Most do have their institution on their profile. If you do that… If you know you want to say things that are possibly unregularly and your institution may not want to hear… You might want to take it off. If you are having general conversations about eLearning that’s probably fine. If you want a presence to speak truth to power from a vulnerable position you have to remember that is persistent, that is replicatable that is public, you have to put your paycheck behind it. But this is why Kansas is so concerning, this idea of full overview of all accounts. If there is viewing of everything that public sphere becomes constrained. And we may see more pseudonymous accounts. And those aren’t anonymous, they are trustworthy and trusted identities… So you could be that person and build relationships without knowing your real name, recognising what you have to say may require protection.

Q: does @bonstewart resemble Bonnie Stewart and how does that work/change?
A: I think @bonstewart may be a better representation of me. In class my students don’t see a full rounded picture of me as a person, we are pushed for time. Following someone on twitter you can get bigger broader ideas of the person. For me what you see if what you get, especially online.


The student experience – Alex munyard

This year I have convened a short arts group or look at how we can maximise the open online resources online, within the university and also in a sort of global academic community. There are also questions about who will use this, just academics and students or more diverse audiences. So there is a real opportunity to become an open access leader.

So what is opening up lectures live? How does the open educational resources work? It means opening up lectures, slides, syllabi, the materials we share with students. Somewhat along the MIT open courseware model but more slickly, and justified on pedagogical grounds. There are good reasons to open up materials across the university – for revision, for learning, for developing ideas. If the university of edinburgh strives to be a global university they have to make moves to prove that. The idea that universities are global public goods, and I think this is something OER can be A hugely important pat of this. Students can record their own lectures but doing this across the university will assist those with students for whom English is a second language, to maintain quality. And the idea that you wouldn’t go to class if the video were available is just wrong, the evidence shows that students do go to class. But we need to use tech to stretch learning, not just using tech for its own sake. Talking out to a room of students isn’t pedagogically justified, just what we’ve done for centuries.

In terms of lecture recording… ELearning represents a real opportunity to make education more accessible, particularly for those with disability. Offer greater efficacy for tapping into students with diverse needs or interests. And a real benefit for international students. When more staff online and more resources available, there is a greater onus on staff to think about how they put material together. I guess to reiterate my core premise, technology should only be researched, invested in, when proven, and when there is pedagogic rationale. To it should in no way limit playfulness or creativity or risk taking.

So to conclude let’s innovate and embrace change. Predominant age old teaching methods need to change, we need to overcome traditional views of that.

Q&A

Q: at the risk of being slightly unfair… If we go down the oath of not only recording lectures, but also massively open course ware… Where is the value in paying your fees, coming to edinburgh, finding a flat… What’s the authentic experience there
A: I think the benefits of OER are multiple faceted. Firstly they would benefit in person students preparing to attend, selecting their course, and engaging in interdisciplinary work. And the wider audiences won’t become students here. MOOC takers are using resources not students at a edinburgh university. So that model can accommodate that idea.

Q: interesting initiative. Do you think full time students will be able to take advantage of having resources from other courses. They are time pressed so will they actually devote their time to that?
A: I think different students will have different focuses. A physics student might use mathematics resources to support that. Science students passionate about the arts may want to engage. But some will not want to engage in other subjects, but I think seeing and engaging with different theories of pedagogies could be very beneficial.

Q: my concern would be huge materials available without support… How would that work? Particularly if they felt they had expertise from doing or engaging with that material without support.
A: well I think not everyone in the University will take that course. It would need to be presented appropriately. But I think if we went down this route there would need to be massive support for staff to make this martial available. I don’t think that students would be graduating from every subject. But something that let’s students have a more rounded and holistic experience. If we make degrees better for employability… A holistic degree should equip students for the world. I’m not claiming that this agenda will make students in every subject… But that space for exploration can only enhance opportunity.

And now we have two videos from students from the MSc in a digital education

Authentic online learning – Ed Guzman and Anna Wood

Ed’s video:
https://vimeo.com/90484211

Anna’s video:
http://learningfrome-learning.blogspot.com/2014/04/authentic-online-learning.html

Technologies and collaborative learning – rubie rennie and students

Jingao
Technology offers lots of opportunities for scaffolding (gibbons) for students in the zone of proximal development (vygotsky 1978). So for instance collaborative opportunities include teaching language and vocabulary around animals by engaging with authentic virtual animals in second life.

And technologies, particularly web 2 (mak and coniam 2008) enable comment, feedback, peer support, and feedback that is rapid and regular, not just from the tutor and not just at the end of the course. For instance through reflective blogs.

And technologies promote collaborative learning by creating environments wher learners can change the social context cues (Ortega 1997) that may be problematic or inhibit the,. They can play with gender, even present themselves as animals.

Technology offers many opportunities for collaborative learning and when I become an English teacher in china I plan to make use of them!

Victoria
I have already been doing some online teaching in china? There are two ways this tends to be done. One is video recording lectures, replicating the lecture experience, not really eLearning really. The other way is using chat software or teaching software to teach students, whether commercial software or sns and chatting software. A word about the commercial software… There is potential value here for us to do this. There are huge quantities of people online and using online courses. But there are softwares we are already using… QQ, YY chat, wei Bo, sian UCAS, Wei chat, Skype. But there are disadvantages… Of seeing each other, not very secure… But these are very commonly used, very flexible, vary familiar, and in Chinese context we could easily use these software.

I want to talk about the main problems in my teaching process… The infrastructure needs to be considered. And we have to understand the students use of the internet. And the use of the technology should consider the context. Students used to technology can easily use it to achieve their gaols. For those less familiar with technology the class can be a much bigger challenge. Also worth noting that in china it is not usual to use email or blackboard to access information, and there is room to develop here. But we have some restrictions. We can’t use youtube or twitter or Facebook in China. Can’t share that. Can’t share experience of using them. Here we could share that experience and those learning materials with classmates, tutors, supervisors etc. so we need to think about that context carefully when we think about our students. Infrastructure is part of that too. There aren’t computers or internet access everywhere, sometimes videos could be downloaded and shared with a class, say.

Ivy

I’m going to talk about my online learning experience in china, at high school . But in china we cannot use computers or mobile devices in school. But one teacher did set up a course on non Kent Chinese literature via blogs, for us to access after school from home. We hadn’t studied this topic before and was really exciting. And it could help students to create their identities. School life can be very sessful and very separate from daily lives. But online courses can let us reshape our knowledge and identities through learning online.

After we entered university we had more opportunity to access online courses. But these courses are videos. Students can only watch the videos and not directly contact the tutors… And there are some people who came up with the idea of a video chatting course using taobao.com, the biggest shopping network online in china. So teachers sell courses in their taobao shop, and students can talk to teachers via Skype, FaceTime, or QQ. Helpful as some students in remote areas of china don’t have access to many learning resources. And moreover these courses are very flexible, students can negotiate with teachers. And it’s closest to face to face interactions.

sheng

I became a student when I was 6 years old, and I have been exposed to traditional Chinese pedagogic models for 17 years. So Herrington 2006 really struck a chord. We need something exciting and interesting and new to engage us. So I chose online learning as an additional course.

When I was an undergraduate student of English we did have an online learning space… It did have lots of functionality but we barely used it. So when I first got here I struggled with the ideal of communicating with staff via emails, how to use learn/blackboard. I think that online students are more likely to be a let To access good authentic materials to explore as language learning.

With online technologies tasks can be set to be authentic experience. Learning in second life enables students across the world to share in a learning event. It provides authentic opportunity for English learners to meet and learn. The authenticity it provides is bette than any other computer mediated communication tools. In techno life seminars, interviews, presentations can be simulated. Presenting in techno life is pretty similar to doing that in real life. And second life is in china, as are other technologies like this, but many teachers are not realising the benefits yet so when I go back to teach I hope to do that!

Q&A

Q: when you showed the screen of the learning environment I had a sudden shift in perspective about what our VLEs look like for our Chinese students. I can’t read the symbols at all and obviously my students do know the language. But it was a real shift in perspective was really interesting. Do you think the challenges can be overcome?
A: I think it’s good to explore tools like second life etc. but for learners especially at younger ages, we have to provide support and explain these environments to the students so that they can cope….

Q: do you think checking all the blogs that students might come up with will take more time for the tutor?
A: I think making a blog is a new experience for a student. There are disadvantages to using blogs but lots of advantages too. And I think that for me everyday I use ten or twenty minutes for a app that could be spent on a blog. It’s just a way to learn and I think we just compare disadvantages and advantages.

A: it is true that at the beginning of using something you haven’t used before it can take some time. When ruby first introduced us to second life I found it hard to find where our meeting was… So I asked coursemates. I thought this is a waste of time but as. Got more used to it it becomes more useful and valuable.

Making it real: authentic teachers online Daphne Loads, IAD
I wanted to talk about authentic teachers…. We have talked about authentic tasks, authentic assessment…not sure we’ve heard authentic teacher yet…

So let’s talk about what an authentic teacher may be, particularly online? Snuggest ions here include a catalyst for learning, someone who brings their own perspective and personality to learning, and someone who continues to learn.

So here’s my thinking… I’ve been a teacher for a long long time… Ie tried to be an authentic teacher for a long time, now trying to learn what it is to be an authentic teacher online… I’d like to take you through my thinking about being an authentic teacher…. About artefact… Some think a crown or jewels, something precious, something old, something that shouldn’t be there that is produced in the profile, hammers and spanners and tools.

Well often people talk about something made by a human hands, or art. (Seeing image of the tenth muse/Sappho, a relatively modern sculpture in Jupiter art land. Something invested with human meaning and that sets up human exchanges. And might be something historical, telling us something about the humans that created it.

Or it tends to be some sort of evidence of something… Something that reminds us of human error or weakness – for instance an X-ray with a. Shadow that is actually created by a braid of hair…

And the other response is just “a thing”!

So saying that an artefact is something made by human beings that tells us about being human, an object.

Teaching is an artefact. There was a time when saying teaching was almost a dirty word, needed to talk about learners and learning. So teaching is an artefact, something made by someone human, their creativity and perspective but also errors and issues from being created by a human.

I think as a teachers learning and teaching online I try to be genuine. But it comes and goes. Maybe I want to reach out to you. But sometimes I just want to run away home. But most of the time I am trying to be genuine, to share myself. Sometimes sharing my humanity brings something valuable to my teaching.

If you want an example see prof al Phil rice of Philadelphia university, his MOOC on modern American poetry. It was a series of interactive, engaged conversations with (graduate) students that gave me a real sense of what it was to engage with American poetry… Tackling difficult stuff, Gertrude stein, because of his authentic engagement. I got a bit of an unlikely crush on him because of his humanness… Carl Rogers said that one of the things that happens is that if we use our humanity we have an authentic feeling that we can use. And my being authentic tic can draw out the humanity and authenticity of students.

Parker Palmer talks about there being something important about being human and making a mistake… Look at what happens in the room… If students are ok calling it out, and the teacher acknowledges and discusses that then real learning is taking place, it’s subject centred learning…

Some yes sharing my humanity or our humanity can get in the way of teaching…

For instance I was learning to use illuminate live… The instructor I could see him, he couldn’t see me. I had to press happy or confused… I could press either… (Ace this wasn’t at this institution) and that was my choice as a learner…. There was no “shut up and let me do something button”. Or humanity is not always the nice bits, the warmth, the inclusion… Sometimes it’s the wanting to just tell you everything you know… He’d given me this unhelpful little piece of autonomy. Not good.

Another example, more complicated. A friend in another institution teaches on the sociology of pain… She was teaching online… Had built up good rapport with students… And she wanted to talk about her experience of childbirth… Something strange happened… Students stopped calling her “doctor” and started to call her “mrs”. A shift in the relationship… They had the ridiculous idea that someone who had had children could not be an academic expert. Now I think my friend should have come back at that with the sociology of power but I think she was too taken aback by the reponse…

And then we have the issue of not accommodating the context. When I first started teaching large groups it was after teaching small groups. I wanted to make eye contact… And I found myself running around the room like a demented chat show host! So I had to adapt… Getting them to talk to each other, to write notes to each other, things like that…

Recently I did a talk on collaborate and couldn’t see the students… And I found the silence really disconcerting… A colleague said “well that’s easy, get them to vote every two minutes”! Not being aware of the context, that got in the way of learning a little bit for me…

So I think authentic teachers online are not people who tell you absolutely everything, or disclosing everything…. But about making careful judgement about when that precious artefact of their humanity. So I think authentic teachers online… Are aware of their humanity and making careful judgements about how much of their humanity me to share. And those themes came out of others talks for me today!

Authentic Information – what can analytics tell us? Anne-Marie Scott, Information Services TELS
I wanted to share with you today some reflections looking at some of the analytics we can get from our technology enhanced learning contexts. I can’t thank daphne enough for setting me up well for this. My background, like Daphne’s, is in literature and Scottish literature… Thinking about moral fables like the cock and the jasp, a chicken who finds a jewel and throws it away… But it is symbolic of knowledge and and nature and of not valuing this precious thing… And I think that can be a lens for analytics…

I’ve been digging through some of our data… Kind of two facets… Learning analytics (personal use of data) and educational analytics (institutional data) and a lot of that work so far has been about figuring out what the heck this stuff is!

So an example from one of the medical VLEs (heat map of activity). This is based on some excellent work our team in MVM have been doing on analytics and student engagement… This is data on how and when students engage. One works mainly towards the end of the evening, the other works intensely early in the morning… But no value to bring to this without understanding the student, the stuff that is not in the analytics. This is a real fast and frugal sort of measure!

The next piece is data from inside our VLEs… Which tools two schools within the same college use… And here we have school A and school B… It looks really very different… Both schools about 70% of courses use learn, pretty high level. So how would this compare with obligatory online medical msc vle usage. Would logins be a good proxy for engagement Less pretty patterns here… Logins turn out not that useful…

So I did the same pattern checking for the school with all the use of social tools… Same patterns… But actually it turns out they don’t use these tools… Discussion boards are in the default template so every course has it, but they are not being used…. But it’s no proxy for understanding what is happening… There is useful stuff here but context and interpretation is everything… The machine can’t do this for us…

Great article – learning analytics: the new black (booth 2012) talks about learning analytics risking becoming reductionist approach for measuring “a bunch mod stuff that doesn’t matter”.

And I’m just beginning this work… We have some work this year and next year… So this year we are looking at what so of analytics might be useful in the VLE, gathering requirements… Maybe trialling MVM approach in moodle. Bet also how to find bette management information, quantifying the data available, seeking feedback. Sense making activity. Next year we have some funded resource available to make some of this happen… Developing tools to better expose data within the VLEs. Developing reporting on our use of central eLearning services. We want to particularly highlight to schools what is happening in their local context and to continue this work Ina. More engaging and inclusive way…

So, what can analytics tell us? Wella. Glib answer (a) quite a lot AND (b) absolutely nothing at all. Humans make these decisions, won’t be machines or business information systems that will make the difference here, context is everything.

Summary and close of formal presentations – Paul McLaughlin, eLearning@ed Forum Committee, School of Biological Sciences
I started this conference but it wasn’t my idea… We were trying to illustrate a concept to Ruby.. And came up with “authenticity”. But it was accidentally no great idea. Land I think it’s gone pretty well! I took note of some key themes I saw coming out today…

The idea of authenticity and messiness… Going against each other to an extent… Came up in Daphne and Ross and Lindys talk. And also we had the idea that our systems or structures can get in the way – in Inger and the business schools talk about cultures that exist… Also institutional failures – Bonnie highlighted failures to reward public scholarship and public engagement. And we haven’t come to terms with students making mistakes (as in robs talk) or teachers making mistakes in front of students (Daphne’s talk). Bonnie kind of talked about the dichotomy with real life. I think none of us will forget the highlight of the day, Lindy’s knitting stuff…. That physical learning matters. And then we saw David peer talking about authenticity and engagement in the portfolios. And I was amused by Micheal begs and the idea of prescribing under stress… The exam being stressful is probably authentic… But you could make it really authentic with switching between tasks – a plate spinning task! And I was impressed by the TESOL students form a moray house and their experiences of learning…

So we took an abstract idea and had everything from finger knitting to load balancing in the cloud! And we can reflect how lucky we are to have such diversity in the university!

Finally a note of thanks to all those who have organised today: Jessie Patterson, Jo Spillar, Marshall Dozier, Ruby Rennie, Sharon Boyd, and anyone else I may have missed!

And with that the talks are finished and we are off for refreshments and the poster sessions.

 April 10, 2014  Posted by at 9:55 am Events Attended, LiveBlogs Tagged with:  1 Response »