9-2-MH&A

February 9, 2010

A few thoughts from the meeting.

They are very interested in applicant database connection with Moodle, then advise on approaches which might make post grad recruitment sticker. They have lots of content (video) – interesting to hear about Barter Repository,  just need to weave it into the a moodle course.

Lots of other discussions around the use of sms, twitter etc., to make the recruitment process sticker.

Other areas of interest include lab books (mentioned talking with Jos), I also said I’d look into this for them.


e-learning staff development programme: interim Report (09-10)

February 9, 2010

Introduction

The aim of this report is to inform to the Head of e-Learning, the e-Learning Team, the LTEO and the wider community at the University of Bath, if the e-learning staff development programme (central provision of workshops and events) is achieving its broad aims.

This is an interim report on the completion of Semester 1 (09-10).

The need for an appropriate and effective e-learning staff development programme is driven by the objectives in the new Learning and Teaching Strategy. The LT Strategy requires the development of the appropriate and effective e-Learning development and support programme for staff and students. This maps across to the broad aims of the e-Learning Team;

Helping staff to integrate e-Learning into their programmes
Sharing innovation and good practice
Developing an e-Learning community
Promoting the evaluating e-Learning
Developing e-Learning Tools

To help achieve these aims we run a number of central staff development events (PGCAPP Unit 6, workshops, seminars, blended courses and coffee breaks) throughout the academic year (see http://www.bath.ac.uk/learningandteaching/themes/e-learning/)

In terms of our broad aims we need to identify if our staff development programme achieves the broad aims of the developing staff capacity in e-learning? Therefore, does it share innovation and good practice across the community? Has our programme had a positive (measurable) impact on staff practice? This report attempts to answer these questions for Semester 1, 2009/10

Background

The following are the descriptive statistics for the e-learning staff development programme (Semester 1, 2009/10). It is evident we have run a large number of events over the period 9 events ran, and 22 were cancelled. In total, 77 participants attended our centrally provided events.

Table 1: Event by type

Semester 1 (ran/cancelled)

Workshop 3/7
Seminar 3/6
Blended course 1/3
Coffee breaks 0/5
Elpf 0/1
External Event 1/0
Moodle Advisory Group 1/0

Table 2: Events by broad focus (all sessions cancelled or not)

Semester 1 (moodle / non moodle)

Workshop 8/2
Seminar 1/8
Blended course 0/4
Coffee breaks 0/5
Elpf 0/1
External Event 0/1
Moodle Advisory Group 1/0

Table 3: Total attendance (average per session which ran)

Semester 1

Workshop 8 (2.6)
Seminar 13 (6.5)
Blended course 2 (2)
Coffee breaks n/a
Elpf n/a
External Event 45 (45)
Moodle Advisory Group 9 (9)

Analysis

The first question is, does our staff development programme build capacity in the individual who attends our sessions and have they applied it within their teaching?

A survey was run (24th Nov, 2009 to 24th Dec, 2009) for staff who attended one of our events in the Semester 2. The time delay was to give participants a number of months after the event so they can apply the knowledge and skills gained from the e-learning event before evaluating impact.

The response rate was very low, 4 out of 64 !!! So, take the following discussion with a very large pinch of salt.

The survey included questions to inform us about longer term impacts. For instance, to what extent do you agree with the statement, “I have applied the knowledge and skills which I developed during the workshop in my teaching and/or work”. The responses indicated one strongly agreed, 1 agreed, 2 were neutral and 1 disagreed. When asked to explain why, the extracts indicated a positive impact and implies effective embedding within their practice.

“I have applied the ARS in my teaching, and this received a lot of success from students”

“it was already in place before the session, so the impact was just reinforcement”

In terms of exploring people views of the quality and worth of the session I asked two questions. Firstly, would they recommend an e-learning workshop to a colleague? Secondly, has attending the workshop motivated you to attend more events by the e-Learning Team? The responses indicated all 4 (100%) would recommend it to a colleague, and 3 people said the experience would motivate them to attending another session.

The final question focussed on identifying if people engaged in our support materials after attending the event. The assumption being if they followed up the session by accessing more resources and assistance this would indicate an increase in staff capacity, and sharing good practice. The responses suggest a number people (at least 3) engaged with the following resources over the last three months.

  • Accessed e-learning pages on LTEO web site: 3
  • Visited one of our supporting blogs, such as Moodle blog, ARS, SMS or QR Code: 2
  • Emailed e-learning@bath for assistance: 3
  • Read an e-learning case study from the LTEO web site: 0
  • Accessed a How to Guide: 2
  • Visited the staff area in Moodle: 3

Recommendations & where next

Some clear messages are evident, firstly, we cancelled more sessions than we ran. Attendance was very low, and the more innovative approaches (coffee breaks, and blended courses) have tended to fail (in terms of most being cancelled). The one-off event was a success in terms of high numbers (although I’ve not been able to identify UoB attendees).

An action which I’ve not followed up from the previous report is to audit how the workshops, and events are integrating clear exit points for attendees, ie., push to how to guides, and case studies.

The very low response rates to the survey means we need to triangulate the approach via the use of focus groups. This should more effectively answer the questions about the impact of our staff development model.


Technology in Teaching in 2015 Workshop – invited speaker

February 8, 2010

I’ve been invited to present at a one day workshop on technology in teaching in 2015. this is being run by the Northumbria University. I’ve been asked to present the vision from the institutional perspective, the others are a voice from JISC and a voice from the HEA.

The intention is to discuss the Bath context is very much based on face to face teaching, therefore, i plan  to sell a vision around how we’ll be teaching in classrooms, given the investments we’ve made in space and people. It will include the barriers to why we might not get to the position we’d like to be, i.e., wide adoption of very flexible learning approaches facilitated by learning technologies. The basis of the narrative will be around my martian landing and walking into a typical UK HEI … also, time to role out the 4E’s model.


staff development routes from e-learning

February 4, 2010

The following is the first stab at illustrating the support and enhancement approaches we offer from the e-leanring team. It is an outcome of trying to explain to many DoS’s the different staff development models we offer.

A key point to appreciate is we offer support (mainly focussed on how to use the software), which is primarly provided through online, just in time, self paced routes. The enhancement activities focus on why and how to use technology to enhance learning and teaching.

I’ll need to include the info on the individual project / pilot blogs.

Time to get input from the team and beyond


4-2-PN-11am

February 4, 2010

Lots of potential work with Management. The aim is to finish the working group to come up with some suggestions, in particular, support a more detailed investigation into Moodle use in the School (this will include an admin person completing a simplier dept review which I use to organise), and the creation of a minimum target on all courses. The final recommendation is a set of bespoke staff development session for the school, plus ensuring the support (button clicking is covered against the minimum standard). However, keen the minimum level does not smoother other creative uses.

Also, interesting to hear they are looking a purchasing some very funky / visual survey tool.


4-2-LF-10am

February 4, 2010

Really good chat about the practical steps of taking forward their distance learning courses. A message which came out was idea of different potential models. For instance;

  • discussed different approaches to manage the tutor workload on the discussion boards.
  • use of the wiki for group work (or individual) so they can evidence the progress in terms of time stamps. This would allow them to assess both the product, and also the process. We also discussed the possibility of using peer assessment on the collaborative work.
  • also discussed the use of megameeting to help facilitate the group work.
  • the use of panopto and megameeting to provide small (10-15 minute) screencasts from invited speakers, which are released a few days before the event, and a Q&A session on megameeting. The forum could be used to provide a summary of the Q&A.

Some problems they have encountered with online submission, include file types and spreadsheets – need to talk at next catch up with RW.

Finally, would be a really useful group to work with when exploring the potential use of a social network client / service


thoughts post out and about

February 3, 2010

1. I bumped into a few library people who mentioned a number of initiatives with other UK hei libraries services and moodle. Including the integration of moodle with current student loans data (LSE was mentioned). On reflection I’d question the value, is it simply turning moodle into a portal? I need to catch up on where we are with portal type developments. The discussion also suggested there was a wave of other search / discovery blocks are on the horizon.

2. Chat with efl included discussion of how might we develop staff capacity in efl for tech enhanced learning. Discussed the idea of a staff development programme. Or the potential use of a carpe diem model. I’d also be very keen to work with Tim as he’s the local e-learning person


1-2-S&J

February 2, 2010

Notes from catch up … in no particular order

Classroom Technologies

Some very interesting work in using ARS for summative assessment. On one unit students peer assess presentations. This contributes a small amount towards their grade. In the past this has used a paper model. However, this year they will be using the ARS. The plan is to have a generic score slide for each presentation, after the presentation the students vote. However, the results are not displayed as it is an individual presentation. The scores (file saved) at the end and passed to admin for mark entry into SAMIS. The students will then receive the score slide associated with their presentation.

They seem very interested in a Dept collection of ARS Clickers. This is not because of problems with AV, more the sense of ownership for the dept. They’d follow the recommended technology, i.e., TurningPoint. However, a little shocked by the price :-)

They also thought responseware would be a problem in logistics in running with people trying to hook up different devices at the start of the lecture … they prefer the idea of just using the clickers

Still very happy with papershow :-) Less with sympodium as occasionally it seems to suffer a blip and not work !

Moodle

Interested in the connection with programme code checking software … i.e., what discussed by Elect Eng at last DoS meeting. I said, we’ll get a few people together to discuss. It should be part of the focus group sessions on needs

With online submission current model is physical handin for marking, and electronic for checking (if required), would be good to take leave out of tax submission, i.e., given a code by the system when you submit, then student prints and this code is watermarked on, and they hand in physically. Have to admit, might be simply to get them to submit electronically, and print from there (will pass the print costs to the department)

OUE

Programme evaluation … what is happening with it?

RT

Would like to include a web interface for RT, but not getting far with this interms of web services. Any thought, a nudge from helpful e-learning?


11-28-at

January 28, 2010

Good chat,  on an individual level he’ll be looking at the potential uses of lecture capture / screencasting. Also, turning point and moodle quizzes. The discussion focused on the barrier of time and conflicting interests (research pressures), and the feeling there is little point as learning innovations do not seem respected / useful at the dept and institutional level. Interesting, as we do lots of this through awards, TDF, promotion track etc., however, this message hasn’t worked through.

The other message focused around OUE – the response rates are very low, these seem to focus on only the disatisfied, while the satisfied are the silent majority. So need to get response rates up (mentioned there has to be a perceived value for the student in completing the OUE).  Is a pointer towards getting the report finished.


e-assessment meeting with SU

January 28, 2010

Vic ran an e-assessment catch up with George and Ben from SU. Aim was to walk through what people can do with the assignment activity. A few interesting questions, asked included …

can we make feedback through the assignment activity from staff compulsory?

annonymous submission … is it feasible? Answer … not through Moodle 1.9 or Moodle 2.0

Other actions which came from the discussion include,

  • to write a scenario about the use of draft submissions for feedback (swim lanes),
  • investigate how we migt be able to close assignments to subgroups in the gradebook (for viewing by staff), i.e., only see the ones you are suppose to assess.