Category: eatbath-team

making our Moodle FAQ available as an OER

We currently run two FAQ engines (both in we’ve been approached by MMU, to get a copy of our Moodle FAQs (as the FAQs are released under Creative Commons, and the FAQ engine is open source). So, we’ll zip the whole thing up and give it to them (this is simpler than trying to extract individual FAQs). They’ll attribute accordingly.

Given we’ve done this work we might as well make this available to all under a OER license in our OER Repository.

Why you ask? Well, apart from loving OER, this could develop into a scenario I’ve been muttering about for quite a while. When staff at Bath search our FAQ engine it also displays the results from other “trusted” sources, ie., MMU. This would be displayed / clustered as another group. The sharing of our FAQs will help build the communication and trust for this to happen.

This project is down to be managed by Nitin, with Alex’s help …. I think it just got a step closer 🙂

I’ll work with Vic on the metadata, and narrative. We’ll raise it at the OER copyright / IPR meeting on Thursday with Leicester.


Plagiarism and Moodle

I met up with Iain Mills to discuss plagiarism student testing. The outcomes are below, a few things to think about for the team.

Scenario 1: New applicants

When perspective students apply to the Uni they enter the new applicant database. This allocates them a username. They then have access to the new applicants area which informs them of progress, gets them to complete stuff. It is proposed, this will include a plagiarism awareness test, which students need to complete prior to completing the application process.

It sounds like they’d like – a Moodle course, based on a programme / unit code so it can be auto generated via SAMIS and students enrolled. This course will have two items; 1) an xerte style formative tutorial on plagiarism, what it is, why it matters, and how not to do it, 2) a moodle quiz on plagiarism

There will be a link from the applicants area to this course

Students will complete the quiz

A report will be auto generated each night to highlight who has completed the quiz. This fact will be uploaded to the students record in SAMIS.

Scenario 2: Existing students

get them onto the course, point at the Xerte tutorial, use adaptive release to access a different quiz.


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


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 events) is achieving its broad aims, and feed into planning decisions for the next academic year.


The need for an appropriate and effective e-learning staff development programme is highlighted by an objective in the Learning and Teaching Strategy . The strategy states the following objective is owned by e-Learning; “develop appropriate and effective e-Learning development and support programmes for staff and students”. Further more, the aims of the e-Learning Team at the University of Bath are;

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

To help achieve these aims we run a number of central staff development events (workshops, seminars, blended courses and coffee breaks) throughout the academic year (see:

In terms of our broad aims we need to identify if  “our staff development programme achieves the broad aim of developing staff capacity in e-learning? does it share innovation and good practice while encourage the develop an e-learning community? This report attempts to answer these questions for the 2009-10 period.

Analysis and Recommendations

The following are the descriptive statistics for the e-learning staff development programme (2009-10). It is evident we have run 23 events over the period and canceled 34 sessions. In total, 196 participants attended our centrally provided events.

Table 1: Events (by type)

Semester 1 (ran/canceled)

  • workshop 3 / 7
  • seminar 3/ 6
  • blended course 1/3
  • coffee breaks 0 / 5
  • elpf (external event) 1 / 0
  • Moodle Advisory Group 1 / 0

Semester 2 (ran/canceled)

  • workshop 8/1
  • seminar 3/5
  • blended course 0/3
  • coffee breaks 0/4
  • elpf (external events) 1/0
  • Moodle Advisory Group 1 / 0
  • Moodle Day 1 / 0

Table 2: Events by broad focus (all sessions)

Semester 1 (moodle / non moodle)

  • Workshop 8 /2
  • Seminar 1 / 8
  • Blended Course 0 / 4
  • Coffee Break 0 / 5
  • elpf (external event) 0 / 1
  • Moodle Advisory Group 1/0

Semester 2 (moodle / non moodle)

  • workshop 6 / 4
  • seminar 3 / 5
  • blended course 0 / 3
  • coffee break 0 / 4
  • elpf (external event) 0 / 1
  • Moodle Advisory Group 1 / 0
  • Moodle Day 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 break n/a
  • elpf (external event) 45 (45)
  • Moodle Advisory Group 9 (9)

Semester 2

  • workshop 28 (3.5)
  • seminar 7 (2.3)
  • blended course n/a
  • coffee break n/a
  • elpf (external event) 50 (50)
  • Moodle Advisory Group 8 (8)
  • Moodle Day 25 (25)

The message from the descriptive statistics is mixed. It indicates over half of our events were canceled. This is an increase in cancellations compare to the previous year.  It indicates the traditional event (workshop and seminar) is the most popular, with the new delivery methods of blended course and coffee break (online seminar) being less appealing. However, the the eLPF format of a one day event seems to be much more popular (although the data hasn’t been divided into Bath and non-Bath). The one-day, themed event appears to be a success on a number of different levels; they are popular, they make people aware of e-learning, they get lots of people in a room, promote discussions over lunch and breaks, they create a large quantity of re-usable outputs (lecture captures, links, readings), and the e-learning team enjoy delivering them.

Members of the e-Learning Team are suppose to use the e-Learning Staff Development 1-2-1 tracking database when they undertake 1-2-1, 1-2-few, ad hoc staff development. A review of this data base indicates 77 events where recorded during the 09/10 period, with over 100 people being met. The breakdown by interest tag, indicates 15% concerned with Moodle, and 11% primary discussion was around online submission of assignments.

So, how can we interpret this? I’m still wary of using this data to suggest we stop trying to develop staff through the blended course and the online seminar. I’d argue this data does not indicate there isn’t a demand for this type of event, I think we still need to experiment with the format to find a low maintenance / delivery model which is effective, and more actively promote it to staff. Therefore, the approach (based on conversations with others in the Team), is to combine these to into a purely online course / event. This should last no longer than the three weeks the current course lasts, it should be designed as a standalone experience (so people can complete it much faster if they don’t wish to engage in dialogue with members of the e-learning Team. To better support the online line, self paced nature of this course we will introduce a number of Xerte tutorials.

An important question is, does our staff development programme build capacity in the individuals who attend our sessions and have they applied it within their teaching? We’ll in terms of the descriptive statistics it indicates a large number of staff have attended our events (196), and the seminars and workshops tend to be on average small numbers (around 4 people per event). So based on the small group nature of the course, we can suggest, assuming the course is appropriately designed it will have been a high impact event.

However, a survey was run (24th Nov, 2009 to 24th Dec, 2009) for staff who attended one of our events in the Semester 2 (2008/09). 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

So, what does this imply? Well given the low response rate, not too much. However, it is worth progressing with this type of analysis.

The questions concerning does our programme share good practice at the University, and does it help develop the wider e-learning community can be addressed in a number of ways. In particular, for this to be effective we need to explicitly sign post this to participants at our events. We’ve rolled out the e-learning Staff Development Wiki Area ( and we are being explicit in the authoring and publication of case studies and how to guides from practitioners at the University.

Recommendations & where next

The new programme for Semester 1, 2010-11 is now available. This programme does not include online seminars or blended courses. It also focuses very much on the here and now in terms of the content (workshops and seminars). It would be recommended for Semester 2, we widen the number of seminars to include more wider range of approaches, based around a new technologies theme.

The e-Learning Team (Nitin) has been progressing very well with SORTED programme to provided training for the student trainers around the use of Moodle. This will need to be included within next years Annual Report. The SORTED programme run a number of Moodle inductions. We’ll need to gather the descriptive statistics.

The e-learning Team need to consistently use (enter information into) the e-learning Staff Development (1-2-1) tracking database.

The evaluation approach needs to be enhanced. For instance, if we better identify who has attended our sessions (use the RFID tag approach currently being developed), we need to triangulate the survey data by exploring people’s Moodle courses to identify use, and select a few to follow up (based on appropriate sampling techniques) for a 5 minute phone / face to face interview. Our current approach still does not definitively answer the question, have we developed an appropriate and effective e-Learning development and support programmes for staff and students?

Dept Economics HEA Project

Well, it looks like the HEA project is back on. This is the one initially started by Rania. It has morphed slightly, but still focusses on the integration of the online learning environment (virtual seminars … they are no physical seminars) and a once the week lecture (2 hours, once a week).

The course redesign involves dividing the students in to a number of groups (with 16 in each group).  The lecture material is divided into three themes (over a total of 11 teaching weeks).  Each lecure will include a 20-30 minute feedback / forward slot which explicitly links the online seminars with the face to face. This will take various approaches (from staff feedback, student justifications, voting etc.,). The key is, this feedback / feed forward loop happens, students are aware this is feedback, and they gain from the process.

To make more time for the feedback slot, a number of key (threshold) concepts will be captured and made available via Panopto.

A scenario being discussed is, in the first weeks while the groups are going through a socialisation phase (online discussion board), and before they start the discussion board activities, the first theme will be covered by a quiz in Moodle, getting people to justify their answers, and feeding this into the lecture, and re-enforcing with a similar activity based on clickers.

There will be eight weeks (week 3 to 11) with set discussion board activities. These will be summarised by two people each week. Each person in the group will be expected to summarise one weeks worth of activity. To encourage participation (motivate them to take part), the coursework will be based on them drawing evidence and ideas from the weekly summaries (where they’ll not be able to answer the question for the theme they summarised), and the exam will be changed to include a Part B which will directly feed from the discussions.

One of the classroom activities might include students commenting about a question via VoiceThread ( The lecture can them sample a few (play back in the lecture) and unpack the ideas and answers.

In terms of e-learning support, I’ve mentioned this one would sit with Nitin.

Designing Xerte tutorials as self paced learning objects

The following has come out of a conversation with Nitin around the design aspects of a Xerte, self paced learning activity.  The following is a story board approach to an introduction to a technology. The level is aimed at an introduction, ie., a person who has little previous knowledge, and is looking for a 10 minute overview. The resource should motivate them to contact the e-learning Team for a further discussion around how they might use the technology.

Some key generic points are;

  1. Use of images: These need to add value to the text, so choose them very carefully. They need to re-enforce the message you are trying to get across. Make sure the quality is acceptable on different screens / displays, and you have rights clearance to use them. You should acknowledge either on the picture or a separate page where the images came from
  2. Remember these are self paced / directed learning objects. So they must be engaging to the desired audience or they’ll not access them, or the impact will be less effective. Therefore, you might want to write a number of learning and teaching scenarios where the technology would be appropriate. A good template would be to use the capture context template used in “what can e-learning do for me” If a number of well defined, high vale added scenarios aren’t forecoming then you might need to re-think the use.
  3. Finally, these resources are part of a wide range of other self paced learning resources we produce, ie., case studies, how to guides and FAQs. It is very important to weave these resources in, and be explicit about exit points to more information.

The following is a templated approach for a passive learning activity;

Intro page

About the activity

The aims, and specific ILOs (ie., by the end of this resource you should know)

Expected time to complete the activity

About the resource

  • State it was created by the e-learning Team at the University of Bath, it is made available under a Creative Commons, Attribution and Share-Alike license.  It is available in the University of Bath’s OER Repository
  • Date and version stamp
  • Contact details

Scenario page

Write an authentic teaching and learing scenario, which is based on discipline needs, pedagogical needs, rooms, units at the University of Bath.

What is the technology page

A brief desctription of what is the technology. This is best refered to other sources, for instance, quotes and definitions. A image, video or audio (referred back in the text), is also very useful. However, remember usability and accessibility 🙂

How is it being used page

This must be linked to actual uses at the University of Bath (should have the greatest impact), and where possible also link to / from one of our case studies. A talking head (flip cam … vox pop) created from staff and students would be really useful.

How do I use it page

This page should include screencasts which demo it’s use. This will differentiate it from the  text based how to guide.

In terms of usability, remember to describe what is happening in the video, ie., link the text to video, to scaffold people on how to interpret the video.

In a perfect world there would be a link to/from the how to guide and reference to the FAQ database

Where do I go next page?

The intention of this page is to get people to connect with the e-learning Team. Therefore, it must contain;

  • e-learning
    • web:
    • email:
    • blog (if appropriate)

It should also include the same information at the start of the resource, ie,

About the resource

  • State it was created by the e-learning Team at the University of Bath, it is made available under a Creative Commons, Attribution and Share-Alike license.  It is available in the University of Bath’s OER Repository
  • Date and version stamp
  • Contact details


Make it more of an active learning resource

The above describes an approach based on passive, read, watch and think learning style. The aim of our designs should be to design this as a more active learning expereince. This is much easier when you drill down into a certain aspect where you can get them to complete a task objectively.  So plenty of food for thought 🙂

Take down policy: OER L&T Store at Bath

I’ve been looking around for a take down policy for our open educational resource repository at the University. The following is based on (find and replace on name) from the notice and take down policy of OPuS. It should be fine … It will be linked from each item in the repository (magic on the include). The main stumbling block is the Repository Manager … we do not have such a post. So, for the ostrich project this will be Vic 🙂


Notice & Takedown Policy

The University of Bath OER Learning and Teaching Store is an open access repository.

The University has endeavoured to ensure that no material deposited in the repository infringes any third party property rights or otherwise infringes UK law. However should you discover any content in the repository that you believe infringes your rights, please notify the Repository Manager ( specifying the particular item(s) that is the subject of your complaint and the particular grounds for your complaint. These grounds may include

  • Unauthorised use by reason of reproduction and/or making available the protected material
  • Breach of any moral right (integrity/right not to have work subjected to derogatory treatment)
  • Issues on grounds other than copyright and/or related rights (e.g. defamation, breach of confidence, data protection)

On receipt of your complaint, the Repository Manager will make an initial assessment of the validity of the complaint and will promptly acknowledge its receipt.

Where the University considers the complaint to be without foundation, the University will inform you of this and provide supporting rationale.

Where the complaint is initially considered to be plausible and is to be pursued, the content that is subject to the complaint will be removed from the repository pending an agreed solution. The Repository Manager will then contact the contributor of the material and inform them that the item is subject to complaint and under what allegations. The contributor will be encouraged to allay your concerns. The Repository Manager will try to resolve the issue by mediating between you and the contributor.

The University will endeavour to resolve the issue swiftly and amicably to the satisfaction of both you (the complianant) and the contributor. If a resolution is found through mediating between the parties this will be enacted/initiated. This will involve one of the following outcomes:

  • The material need not be changed and the material is reinstated in the Repository
  • The material is reinstated in the Repository with changes made.
  • The material is permanently removed from the repository (although a metadata citation may remain)

Copyright Guidelines for Lecture Capture (Uni of Bath)

The following is based on the work of Graham McElearney at University of Sheffield. He’s released their version as an OER ( When we get ours sorted we’ll attribute and share alike.

The next steps are to share this with the e-learning Team and the AV Team. See about any issues we can think of, after which it needs to go to Kerena for input. The input is on the content and implementation, is it appropriate? have we got this covered already? where should the document reside?


Copyright Guidelines for Lecture Recording at the University of Bath

Summary of the key issues:

Although it may often be legal and acceptable to use certain Copyright protected materials in lectures and seminars, e.g. images in PowerPoint presentations or video clips from commercially available DVDs, it may not be legal or acceptable to record the use of these materials using the University’s Panopto Lecture Capture Software or by any other means unless,

  1. The copyright period in the material has expired
  2. You own the copyright of the material
  3. The University of Bath owns the copyright of the material
  4. You have specific copyright clearance to use the materials in this way

It is important to remember that:

  • You are responsible for making sure that your recorded lectures do not infringe copyright
  • Both you and the University are at risk from being sued and/or prosecuted for infringing copyright, either within recorded lectures using Panopto or materials uploaded to Moodle and/or other University web based delivery systems
  • Simply placing copyrighted materials within a password protected environment does not make it legal – it is still unauthorised copying
  • Although it may be legal to use these materials within a class, it does not necessarily make it legal to include them within a recorded lecture and/or upload these to Moodle
  • The University of Bath will enforce a notice and take down policy in the light of any proven copyright infringements. Further details of this policy can be found at xxxx

Specific Issues

Material from your own/colleagues research, including tables and images:

Although it may be your work, you may have already signed away the copyright to this if you have had the research published by a journal. Any publishing agreement must be checked to see how the work can now be used. It may be possible to use the pre-print version of the article, including the illustrations. Otherwise it may be possible to request for extracts of journal articles to be scanned by the Library ( under the CLA licence – contact the Library for more details.


Although it is very easy to download images from the Internet and insert them into your presentations, these images will almost certainly be subject to some sort of copyright, and unless you own the copyright yourself, it is NOT legal or acceptable just to download them and use them in your recorded lectures.
Images are of course a very powerful aid and may often form an essential part of your teaching. Fortunately there are many ways that you can legally use images in your recorded lectures:
•    Use images where their copyright has expired
•    Many sites e.g. Flickr, allow you to use images subject to a Creative Commons (CC) licence – all CC licences mean the copyright owner must be attributed and there may be other restrictions on its use
•    There are an increasing number of Open Educational Resources that allow the use of images in this way
•    Create your own
•    You can have images from books in the University Library digitised for use in class in conformance with the CLA licence – contact the Library (
•    Obtain permission to use them from the copyright holder

Video materials

The lecture recording process will only make a very low grade copy of any videos you show in class, so this is not a recommended way to make such materials available to your students. These low grade copies are still subject to copyright however, so please bear the following in mind:
•    Commercially purchased DVDs should not be recorded in this way unless you get permission from the copyright holder
•    The copyright in videos that you might show from sites such as YouTube or iTunes U resides with the creator of the video, so again you would need to obtain permission directly from them (YouTube or iTunes U cannot grant this on their behalf). Some of these materials may be available for educational use or under a CC licence.
•    Television programmes can be recorded off-air to show in class but unfortunately cannot be made available for viewing online off campus under the University’s current ERA licence.
•    On demand services such as the BBC’s iPlayer are not covered by the off-air recording licence so cannot be made available online as part of a recorded lecture.

If you wish to use any of the above in a lecture you want to record, you will need to edit these parts out of the recording. Please contact Audio Visual ( for advice about this.

Sound recordings

Commercially bought audio cd’s can be used in class, but should not be included in a lecture recording, so these sections will need to be edited out from the recorded lecture.

Podcasts that you download from the web normally have an implied licence that enables you to copy and use them, as downloading them is a means of copying, so generally speaking you should be ok to use them, unless they have an accompanying statement that precludes their use. As with all these cases, if in doubt – check.

Streamed audio from services such as the BBC Listen Again service may also be used in class but again should not be included in your recorded lectures so must be edited out.

Further Information

For more information about using digital resources in your lectures, consult JISC Digital Media’s excellent guide to “Finding Video, Audio and Images Online” from the right hand menu ( )

For further information around copyright of materials used in learning and teaching, consult the University of Bath, Library Services. In particular,