#HECon14
Putting the Student at the Centre of their Learning A collection of papers presented at E-Learning in HE Conference 2014
www.jiscrsc.ac.uk
Keynote addresses Enhancing the Learner Experience Mark Stubbs, Manchester Metropolitan University
Designing for learning: Putting tutors at the heart of the system Will Stewart, University of Bradford
Workshops Open Badges: opportunities and challenges Julie Adams, Staffordshire University
The Learner as a Collaborator Nick Lund & Orlagh McCabe, Manchester Metropolitan University
The use of mobile technologies in Biosciences: a case study Dan Peart, Steven Johnstone, Jessica Brown & Pumlani Bangani, University Centre, North Lindsey College
Empowering Students through Learning Space Design Jonathan Rhodes & Matthew Green, University of Wolverhampton
Unlocking the VLE: a collaborative approach to developing online learning resources Stephen Rose, University of Exeter
Bricks and Clicks: reflecting blended learning using Moodle 2 Phil Sayer & Dr Beth Tunstall, The Manchester College
New Solitudes? Social Media in Teaching Dr Simon Stevenson & Dr Michelle Denby, Doncaster University Centre
Bringing learning alive using Augmented Reality Dee Vyas & Nillan Fakira, Manchester Metropolitan University
Enhancing the Learner Experience Mark Stubbs, Manchester Metropolitan University
In 2010, with top level support and direction from the Deputy Vice Chancellor for Student Success, Manchester Metropolitan University set up the EQAL Programme to Enhance the Quality of Assessment for Learning, and make a step-change improvement in student satisfaction by refreshing the entire undergraduate curriculum. Change on this scale is unprecedented for the sector and the university’s new Business Improvement Team worked hard to ensure that work in four complementary areas was coordinated effectively. Each strand of work depended on the others to deliver the programme’s intended benefits.
would receive maximum benefit from the changes. The timescale was fierce: six months of planning, consultation and preparation culminated in new curriculum rules, which set up the first twelve month implementation cycle. Web forms were invented for capturing curriculum once and ensuring that all relevant information flowed without further manual data entry to the systems where it was needed. Programme teams and module leaders stepped up to the challenge, entering their newly designed curriculum into the forms, so that they could be approved after suitable internal and
“ [The] hard efforts [were] reflected in improved NSS scores and positive feedback from student representatives and internal survey results.“ New rules were required for the new undergraduate curriculum that would dovetail with smarter administrative processes and systems. Quality assurance and enhancement processes had to be redesigned to cope with the simultaneous redesign and approval of every first year module, then every second year and eventually every final year. New web and mobile technology was built to ensure that all students
external scrutiny. The new first year modules were set up automatically in the Student Records System and the new Moodle Virtual Learning Environment. Teaching schedules for timetabling the new modules were captured at the level of detail required to produce personal timetables for all first year students. In September 2011, the new first year went live on schedule, and work
began on entering the new second year modules for September 2012. In September 2013 the new final year went live. MMU had re-written its entire undergraduate curriculum, and provided every undergraduate student with a personal timetable, assignment schedule, reading lists and learning materials via Moodle and a free smartphone App, for which over 27,000 have registered. Change on this scale is unprecedented for the sector, and everyone involved was pleased not only to see timely delivery of an ambitious promise but also to see their hard efforts reflected in improved NSS scores and positive feedback from student representatives and internal survey results. EQAL is now moving into its embedding phase, mainstreaming innovations and providing tutors with the information they need to drive continuous improvement of their programmes and modules and support student retention and success.
Designing for learning: putting tutors at the centre of the system Will Stewart, University of Bradford One thing that most people involved in Higher Education seem to agree on is that the quality of teaching and learning has to improve. What they don’t agree on is what this means or how to do it. As Dewey (1899) noted in relation to change in the American school system, “…our social life has undergone a thorough and radical change. If our education is to have any meaning for life, it must pass through an equally complete transformation.” Dewey was, of course, referring to the impact of the Industrial Revolution on society. We are in the midst of our own revolution, the Digital Revolution, and face the same challenges in transforming our higher education system into one that is relevant and meaningful to the today’s learners and to society as a whole. Government tends to see the solution through policy processes, connecting the world of HE with the politics of Quality Assurance, Management, Governance and Funding. We only have to look at the “Putting Students at the Heart of the System” White Paper published in 2011 to see that their emphasis is on areas such as providing students with more information about their courses, changing funding models, and providing FE with degree awarding powers. While the Paper does charge HE providers with delivering a better student experience through improving teaching, assessment and feedback it doesn’t provide any guidance on how they should go about this - thankfully! So, while these policy changes may help move students closer to the heart of the education system in terms of, say, access and widening participation, they don’t provide ways of putting the student at the centre of their own learning. In putting students at the centre of their own learning, we are talking about a transformation of the HE education system. Transforming a
teaching and learning model that is still very much institutionally-centred and, at best, teacher-centred. A system where most lecturers and tutors still see themselves in the content-delivery business, and where the environment in which they are asked to teach, and the assessment models they are expected to use, not only encourage this but actively discourage any change to a more student-centred approach. An environment where technology is frequently used to maintain the status quo. In moving students to the centre of their learning, we require a learningcentred model of education (Light et al, 2009), where the tutor’s role is to support students in their active construction of knowledge. In a learning-centred institution, tutors are adept in designing for learning and there is a common understanding
“ In putting students at the centre of their own learning, we are talking about a transformation of the HE education system...”
between students and tutors that learning is not about the intake, memorisation and regurgitation of content, but about an active dialogue in order to bring about conceptual change and to move students towards becoming autonomous and selfdirected learners. In this presentation, we will consider the implications for higher education of such a transformation of the dominant teaching model and, indeed, whether such a transformation is possible. References Dewey,J. (1899). The School and Society. Cosimo Classics. Light, G., Calkins, S., Cox, R. (2009). Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: The Reflective Professional (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. London. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2011). Higher Education: Putting Students at the Centre of the System. Available at: http://www.bis.gov.uk. [Accessed 17th March, 2014]
Open Badges: opportunities and challenges Julie Adams, Staffordshire University
Badges to award achievement have been used for many years. From Scout and Guide badges, to swimming and cycling proficiency and more, badges are a good way of celebrating achievement and showing progress. These ‘physical’ badges can be difficult to share and owning one does not guarantee you have achieved the skills or knowledge it represents. A search online will reveal a wide variety of badges for sale! Digital badges ( “an online representation of a skill you’ve earned” (Mozilla, 2013)) can help with this and the Open Badge standard developed by Mozilla takes the concept further by ensuring skills are verified through a credible organisation. This standardsbased, open framework provides a new way to think about how badges can be applied within learning environments. They offer the opportunity to recognise and reward skills, competencies and achievements inside and outside the classroom, including social and
“ [Badges] can encourage deeper learning and become a real motivator.”
voluntary contexts. Learners can collect multiple badges from different issuers and package them to give a full picture of their achievements. Mozilla provide a ‘backpack’ (effectively a portfolio) to allow storing and sharing of badges to work effectively. There are, however, challenges in ensuring Open Badges are used effectively and appropriately, and still some barriers to adoption, although these are reducing as use grows and more organisation come on board. Usage of Open Badges has grown rapidly since their official launch in Spring 2013. Recent figures from Mozilla indicate that since November 2012 235,000 badges have been issued, from 1900 issuers, with 50k+ Backpacks (Riches and Belshaw, 2014). The main feature which sets Open Badges aside from other digital badges is the metadata embedded within them. The badge issuer defines the criteria needed for the user to achieve the badge - this might be completion of a task, displaying competency in a skill or participation in an event/activity - along with information on who issued the badge, when it was issued and (optionally) an expiry date. The type of activities badges are being used to recognise is very wide-ranging. They are popular within MOOCs, for extra-curricular activities (music, drama, art etc.), skills which might develop
across a programme (presenting, debating, group-work), for skills not recognised within main assessment (expertise in software packages, for example) and for continuing staff development. The idea of motivation through award is not a new one, although not everyone will be motivated to learn or complete a task by the possibility of earning a badge. Indeed some people may consider them rather childish. However, for many learners badges can be very motivating and bring out their competitive side – once they have earned one badge they want to get more! Skill badges, in particular, can encourage deeper learning and become a real motivator, especially if the badges are seen as desirable and attainable and help students stand out from their peers. Badges awarded for skills recognise what a learner has already done, rather than what they can do, or potentially do. This can make them much more attractive to employers (Tracey, 2013). Much of the criticism of Open Badges is that they might be rather trivial (in both look and function) or used inconsistently. Research at City University highlighted these issues as well as the fact that badges might not be credible with employers (Glover and Latif, 2013), a fact endorsed at a recent workshop led by Jisc RSC Scotland (Hamilton, 2014) although acceptance
is likely to grow as badges become more widely used and understood. The issue of validity and trust is one Mozilla take seriously with recent work looking at endorsement of badges companies or organisations endorsing a badge issued by a college/university and vice versa – and the establishment of the independent Badge Alliance: “a network of organizations and individuals building and enhancing an open badging ecosystem” (Knight, 2014) To help overcome these criticisms it is essential to plan before starting to use badges and consider carefully what badges will be issued for and how they will be awarded. As the metadata within the badge associates it with the issuing college/university you need to be sure that the badges awarded are something your institution is happy to put their name to! It may be worthwhile starting with small-scale pilot studies, such as specific student groups or for staff development, to be sure the process selected works for your institution. There are a number of tools available to help with the planning, creation and awarding of badges. A very comprehensive system has been developed through the DML Design Principles Documentation Project, run by Indiana University. This identified four principles to consider: Assessing, Motivating, Recognising and Studying learning with badges. Once thought has been given to these principles, the badge canvas from Digital Me, part of the Badge the UK project, will help map the steps required in a logical and consistent way. There are also tools to create the badge images - such as OpenBadges.me, or an all-in-one creation and issuing system such as Credly. These help ensure the visual appearance is an appropriate format, style and size. Finally, you need to consider the tool which will issue the badge. For colleges
and universities who use Moodle 2.5 or Blackboard 9 support for Open Badges is built in, so this might be the easiest route to consider initially. Another easy-to-use tool is the WordPress plugin wp-badger for institutions which have their own WordPress installation. We have used this at Staffordshire University for our initial experiments with Open Badges and for us this has proved to be an effective system.
Accessed 5 March 2014.
In summary, Open Badges cannot be ignored. Their use will continue to grow alongside recognition of their validity as an effective way to recognise achievement, so now is the time to consider how you can make use of the opportunities they offer.
Mozilla (2013) About Open Badges (online) http://openbadges.org/about/ Accessed 27 February 2014.
Indiana University, School of Education (2014) DML Design Principles Documentation Project (online) http:// iudpd.indiana.edu/tiki-index.php). Accessed 3 March 2014. Knight, E (2014) Badge Alliance, World of E’s blog , 14 February 2014 (online) http:// erinknight.com/post/76658602160/badgealliance. Accessed 5 March 2104.
Mozilla (2014) Badge Alliance Announced at Summit to Reconnect Learning, Mozilla Open Badges Blog (online) 13 February 2014. http://openbadges.tumblr.com/
“ Badges awarded for skills recognise what a learner has already done, rather than what they can do, or potentially do. This can make them much more attractive to employers.” References Blot, K (2014) Shaping the Future of Education as a Founding Member of the Badge Alliance, Blackboard blog, 20 February, 2014. (online) http://blog. blackboard.com/shaping-future-educationfounding-member-badge-alliance/. Accessed 4 March 2014. DigitalMe (2013) Badge Canvas (online) http://www.digitalme.co.uk/badgecanvas/. Accessed 27 February 2014. Glover, I and Latif, F (2013) Investigating Perceptions and Potential of Open Badges in Formal Higher Education. (online) http://www.slideshare.net/ IanGlover2/112141-24329050. Accessed 3 March 2014. Hamilton, G (2014) Evidencing Employability Skills with Open Badges, Jisc RSC Scotland Blog (online) http://www.rsc-scotland. org/eassessment/2014/01/10/evidencingemployability-skills-with-open-badges/.
post/76495477766/badge-allianceannounced-at-summit-to-reconnect . Accessed 4 March 2014. Riches, T and Belshaw, D (2014) Creating a new learning currency with Open Badges: BETT 2104 (online) http://www.slideshare. net/timriches96/bett-2013-creating-a-newlearning-currency-with-open-badges-timriches-doug-belshaw Accessed 3 March 2014. Tracey, R (2013) The past tense of Open Badges. eLearning provocateur blog, 3 July 2013. (online) http://ryan2point0.wordpress. com/2013/07/03/the-past-tense-of-openbadges/
The Learner as a Collaborator Nick Lund & Orlagh McCabe, Manchester Metropolitan University
Educational institutions globally are integrating new technologies into their learning systems to support and enhance the student experience. It is increasingly necessary for HE practitioners to have a certain level of understanding of new technologies and e-learning systems and to be able to assess the impact of these technologies on student learning performance (Blasco-Arcas et al, 2012).
under the EQAL initiative (Enhancing Quality and Assessment for Learning). Before EQAL, a typical undergraduate programme consisted of 6 units (modules) that had 2 hours contact per week. Since EQAL, all undergraduate programmes consist of 4 units with 3 hours contact. The 3 hours can be utilised in a variety of ways but for many it has increased the time that is designated a ‘lecture’. We have known
“ SRSs [student response systems] can be effective in promoting student–instructor interaction in a large lecture class because students are more cognitively engaged during learning.” Like many HE institutions, Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU) is adapting its structures and processes to meet the challenges of the demands of wider policy context and financial pressures by employing emergent technologies. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) focus on the benefits and the outcomes of using technology to support the learning process which underpins infrastructure, management practices and services that impact learning, teaching and assessment (HEFCE, 2009/12). Since 2011 all undergraduate programmes at MMU have been revised
for some time that lectures are not the most effective means of teaching (see, for example, Bligh, 1971). It is also clear from the evidence that students cannot maintain concentration in long lectures. Considering this, tutors are now under pressure to continuously support key pedagogical issues such as feedback, reflection and engagement. Student response systems (SRSs or ‘clickers’) allow students to respond to questions using remote devices. The results are instantly collected, summarised and presented visually to the student (Kay and LeSage, 2009). Responses can be made anonymous
and answers can be hidden if required. SRS’s are gaining popularity in the learning environment and have been used to improve student interaction, engagement, and attention as well as promoting attendance, stimulating discussion, facilitating feedback and improving learner performance (Draper and Brown, 2004). There is also evidence that SRSs can be effective in promoting student–instructor interaction in a large lecture class because students are more cognitively engaged during learning (Mayer et al, 2009). According to Kay and LeSage (2009) one of the biggest challenges for teachers in using SRSs is the time needed to learn the technology and to set it up. However, a number of recent free programmes have become simpler to use. For example, ‘Socrative’ is a free programme that has been designed by educators that claims it only takes 3 minutes to set up. Over the past academic year, Socrative has been used in the delivery of units across a number of subject areas in an Interdisciplinary department. Initial evaluations of this feedback have been positive. In this presentation, we will reflect upon this feedback and wider research to evidence examples of how using SRS can have an impact upon feedback, reflection and engagement for undergraduate students. In our study over 90% of the students
enjoyed using the SRS and left comments such as ‘I found it very helpful and informative’. Instant feedback can be considered beneficial for both the student and the tutor. A tutor can immediately decide whether to revisit previous material to review ‘knowledge gaps’ in more detail or continue with the topics based on student responses (Chui et al, 2013). Similarly a student can reflect ‘on action’ using real-time feedback to reflect on their comprehension of materials and identify any issues that may need further attention, to develop their knowledge and understanding. This has a positive effect on both learning and teaching development allowing tutors to make better use of class time by focussing on topics where students are struggling (Carnaghan et al, 2011). In our polls 85% of our students reported that using SRSs in lectures would make them more likely to engage with learning. Many of the free comments left in exit polls highlighted the sense of engagement with the subject matter as one of the most positive features of the system. Mayer et al (2009) suggest students who are engaged and actively participate in classroom learning are more likely to learn more overall. SRSs actively promote student engagement and participation as they encourage the individual contribution of all students. The virtual nature of responses and the
option of anonymity allows students to engage in discussions where they may previously have not felt confident. Our research, in line with much of the previous work in this area, suggests that SRSs are an effective way of engaging students in lectures and in promoting active learning in what has been traditionally a passive role. References Blasco-Arcas, I. Buil, B. Hernández-Ortega and Javier Sese, F. (2013).Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance,” Computers & Education, 62, , 102-110. Bligh, D (1971). Whats the use of lectures? Penguin. Carnaghan C., Edmonds T.P., Lechner T.A., Olds P.R. (2011). Using student response systems in the accounting classroom: Strengths, strategies and limitations. Journal of Accounting Education, 29, 265-283.
Chui, L. Kasey, M, Byron, P, (2013). A quasiexperimental assessment of interactive student response systems on student confidence, effort, and course performance. Journal of Accounting Education, 31, 17-30. Draper, S.W. & Brown, M.I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81–94. HEFCE, (2009) Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of technology: A revised approach to HEFCE’s strategy for e-learning. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/ year/2009/200912/ (Accessed 7/03/14) Kay R.H., LeSage A. (2009). Examining the benefits and challenges of using audience response systems: A review of the literature. Computers and Education, 53, 819-827. Mayer, R.E., Stull, A., DeLeeuw, K., Almeroth, K., Bimber, B., Chun, D. Bulger, M., Campbell, J., Knight, A., & Zhang, H. (2009). Clickers in college classrooms: Fostering learning with questioning methods in large lecture classes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34, 51–57.
“ The virtual nature of responses and the option of anonymity allows students to engage in discussions where they may previously have not felt confident.”
The use of mobile technologies in Biosciences: a case study Dan Peart, Steven Johnstone, Jessica Brown & Pumlani Bangani, University Centre, North Lindsey College The enhancement of digital literacy in Higher Education students has been promoted in recent years. Such skills are arguably highly important in Bioscience and Biochemistry in light of a recent report indicating a technical skills gap, and the fact that a Nobel Prize was awarded in the area of computational chemistry in 2013. The aim of the initial 12-month period of this case study was to challenge ourselves as educators to implement mobile technologies into our practice to enrich and enhance traditional teaching methods. The purpose of this presentation is to share some of the developments at the half way point of the first year of the trial. The NMC Horizon Report 2012 informed the starting point of these developments, presenting the key drivers for the development of mobile technologies, placing the concept of ‘anytime, anywhere learning’ as the key priority for students. Reflective accounts of the project will be given from both the student and staff perspectives. Two Level 5 students from the FdSc Bioscience and Biochemistry cohorts will discuss their experiences of using mobile devices in a lecture and laboratory session, and also the use of these technologies to assist with self-directed study and work based learning. Staff from the University Centre will share observations of student development including their use of the technologies to overcome troublesome knowledge, solve problems and take their learning experiences into new environments rather than relying on the formal allocation of time in class. Future plans to develop the mobile experience will also be shared, including a collaborative staff-student project to critically assess available health applications and peripheral technologies for tablets, and the use of CAD to develop augmented realities.
The aims of the next 12-24 months are to build on the early success of the project and to more closely map student progression to a digital literacy framework, and further investigate the potential use of mobile technologies to overcome threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge in the Biosciences. Furthermore the use of mobile technologies to enhance digital literacy will be given greater consideration in the development of module and programme outcomes when (re)validating courses. References JISC (2013) Developing Digital Literacies [online] Available at: <http://www.jisc. ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning/ developingdigitalliteracies.aspx> Open University (2014) Digital and Information Literacy Framework [online] Available at: http://www.open.ac.uk/ libraryservices/subsites/dilframework/ Cogent, Semta and Skills for Health (2010) Life sciences and pharmaceuticals: A future skills review with recommendations to sustain growth in emerging technologies. Available at: <http://www.cogent-ssc.com/ information/ebulletin/Mar_10/lifesciences. php Nobel Prize (2013) The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2013 [online] Available at: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ chemistry/laureates/2013/ NMC (2012) NMC Horizon Report, Higher Education Edition. Available at http://www. nmc.org/publications/horizon-report-2012higher-ed-edition Meyer, J, H., F., Land, R. (2006) Overcoming Barriers to Student Understanding: Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge. Routledge
The University of Wolverhampton is committed to widening participation and to address student attainment disparities. This brings Learning and Teaching into sharp focus and supports the notion that learning space design can have a direct, tangible, positive impact on student experience and achievement. The University is migrating from an ‘economy of scale’ approach to room design (traditional, standardised, maximum occupancy, front facing rooms), towards collaborative, innovative, flexible room design in response to current pedagogical, social and technological factors. When this ‘new’ approach to the design and development of learning spaces involves key stakeholders, is research informed and rigorously evaluated, the learning spaces that evolve can be flexible enough to meet stakeholders’ needs and offer students the authority to become partners in their own learning. The Learning and Teaching Test Environment (LaTTE) project team was formed in 2012 and comprises: IT Services, Estates and Facilities, Registry, The Centre for Technology Enhanced Learning (CTEL), The Students’ Union and Learning Information Services (LIS). The project aim was to create and evaluate a test environment that would impact positively on the student learning experience and influence the future design of all University of Wolverhampton Learning and Teaching spaces. Following a period of research in which key stakeholders were asked for their views on learning spaces, an underutilised room that proved unpopular with students due to its size, general condition and windowless location, was selected for the project. This space was to be redesigned and developed as the ‘LaTTE’ room. Design elements that were prioritised following stakeholder consultation
Empowering Students through Learning Space Design Jonathan Rhodes & Matthew Green, University of Wolverhampton
included improving the infrastructure of the room; installing controllable lighting; increasing light into the room by placing a side window by the door and glass in the existing door; using tables designed to facilitate group work, each with a PC and glass writing boards; decorating the room; and placing technology in the room which would support Learning and Teaching outcomes. The LaTTE room was completed and available for teaching during semester 2, 2013. Staff who booked the LaTTE were trained by CTEL staff in how to use the technology and importantly, how to adapt their teaching style to benefit from the redesigned learning space and impact positively on student learning. Whilst in use, a number of evaluative tools and techniques were used to gather as much information as possible from staff and students and gauge the successes and possible failures of the room and the project. The data garnered from this evaluation can be broadly subdivided into four categories: Learning and Teaching Staff feedback indicated that the power balance changed whilst in the room. It was no longer expected that the tutor should just ‘give’ information which the students passively received. The room facilitated discussion and the technology facilitated co-learning. Layout and Furniture The room’s layout encouraged this move away from front facing didactic approaches that perpetuated the traditional power relationships between lecturer and student. By creating a less threatening ‘shared’ learning environment, with a clear, open space in the centre of the room, student and staff movement was encouraged and group working naturally occurred around cluster tables, encouraging peer-to-peer learning.
Environment The glass sections added to the side of the door maximised natural light and improved, variable lighting allowed staff and students to determine ‘lit’ focus in-session. A calming, accent colour (teal) was used throughout the décor of the room to allow the ‘eye to rest’ when not focusing on the projected image or individual screens and the high quality finish garnered students responses stating it was “a good studying environment.” Technology The LaTTE supports ‘Bring Your Own Devices’ (BYOD) culture, offering a high capacity wireless network and providing power sockets for charging devices and monitor connectors on each plectrum table. Each cluster also benefits from having its own PC and monitor for student login in support of session aims. The interactive projector allows students to contribute directly to the session through the use of digital pens; the layout design facilitating and encouraging students to move towards the front ‘teaching’ wall to engage with the taught material. At the culmination of teaching in S2, 2013, comparative data was collected, comparing students’ average grades for those having used the LaTTE with those students who had not used the room. Whilst this is a limited dataset, the findings are significant. The data shows a 31% increase in average grade for students using LaTTE over using standard classrooms and 82% decrease in non-submission. White students achieve 16% better grades in LaTTE, but most significantly, BME students achieved a 44% better grade using LaTTE than standard classrooms. As the University of Opportunity, with a focus on widening participation, these early findings would seem to validate the LaTTE approach and its impact on Learning and Teaching at the institution.
Following the success of the project and the LaTTE team winning the ‘Vice Chancellors’s Award for Staff Excellence in the Category ‘Innovation/ Initiative of the year’ the team has been formally invited to be a key contributor to all University ‘new build’ projects and refurbishments of existing Learning and Teaching spaces. The research informed, evaluated process that was key to the initial project is now informing the University of Wolverhampton Business School build, engaging staff and students in the design process and seeing the evolution of new Group, Ultra-flexible, Collaborative-Active and Multipurpose Lab room designs. The LaTTE team believe that through the practical application of consultation based, research informed, evaluated design processes, learning spaces can evolve to meet the needs of all students and teachers. This process empowers them to become partners in the design of their Learning and Teaching spaces and positively impacts on their learning experience at the University.
“ ..data shows a 31% increase in average grade for students using LaTTE [Learning and Teaching Test Environment] over using standard classrooms and 82% decrease in nonsubmission...”
Unlocking the VLE: a collaborative approach to developing online learning resources Stephen Rose, University of Exeter Traditionally Virtual Learning Environments (VLEs) have been restricted in their use and resource development capabilities, to academics with responsibility for the delivery of courses or programme modules. In this respect the online environment might be considered as ‘inflexible’ as the resources they contain and strategies employed to meet student learning needs lie solely in the hands of lecturers. An alternative approach to utilising the VLE might be to enable students to work in partnership with their lecturers to explore how the VLE and associated resource development might be better employed to address their particular learning needs and specific concerns. At the University of Exeter a series of small projects, funded by HESTEM and the HEA, have facilitated practical engagement with the notion of collaborative co-creation, where students are able to work constructively with their lecturers to author online learning resources which will support their needs as learners.
learning. The approach also addresses the issue often cited by lecturers that they often find it difficult to ‘keep up’ with their net-savvy students who are able to work collaboratively within a new generation of social media and with tools they have identified as being particularly useful in supporting their learning. The projects present many innovative approaches to supporting teaching and learning and include tools which have been identified and developed by the students themselves.
“ Virtual Learning Environments can be effectively and responsibly ‘unlocked’ and utilised as a medium for co-creating resources, supporting an active community of teaching and learning...” The projects demonstrate how Virtual Learning Environments can be effectively and responsibly ‘unlocked’ and utilised as a medium for cocreating resources, supporting an active community of teaching and learning within a programme of study. The use of ‘sandboxes’ which effectively mirror tutor-controlled modules within the VLE offer students an excellent means of exploring innovative ways of harnessing a range of tools and online resources which can support their
The projects also aimed to address the issue of challenges associated which are often experienced by students in transition between school and university or stages of programmes. By engaging in a constructive dialogue with students about their perceived difficulties at these times and exploring methods by which they might be resolved, lecturers are better able to ensure that the VLE is utilised to best effect to lend support at these most
critical points of the student learning experience. A more ‘unlocked’ VLE also presents opportunities for students to undertake assessed coursework which has legacy beyond accruing marks towards their final degree. In a third year Mathematics module students are presented with the challenge of creating innovative, engaging and interactive online resources which address ‘difficult knowledge’ within a framework of collaborative partnership with their lecturers. These studentdeveloped, peer-reviewed resources are added to a growing bank of online resources which are having particular value as aids to revision and a means of supporting students who might be struggling with challenging concepts. The approaches taken to developing collaborative resources which are more responsive to student needs are having a positive impact on enhancing satisfaction with the overall learning experience at Exeter, particularly with regard to the effective use of the institutional virtual learning environment and online support.
Bricks and Clicks: reflecting blended learning using Moodle 2 Phil Sayer & Dr Beth Tunstall, The Manchester College The session focuses on a course run at a large FE college in the North West where learners aim to join nursing and allied health professions and is a valid and respected Level Three route into higher education. Most learners are making a planned return to education after a number of years away from any structured learning. For the purposes of the blended learning demographic analysis, individual cohorts based on mode of study were grouped. The group’s ages range from 19-53 years old, producing a range of experiences in the use of ICT. Moodle 2 was deemed to be the central focus for online student interaction. It was also seen as a means of assessing a number of technology-based approaches to better serve the learners and thus produce a system that fully promotes student-centred learning. Littlejohn and Pegler (2007, p70) refer to this as ‘finding the finest blend’ and since the off-campus portion of the course is significant, a great deal of thought was required to ensure student learning needs were being met, whilst being mindful that the synchronous and asynchronous aspects of the course were carefully and effectively woven together. In the first instance, the setup of the blended component was influenced by models of e-learning for health courses in higher education (Pellowe et al., 2009). Macdonald (2006) considers that ‘in a successful blended strategy all elements of the course, including the assessment, are consciously designed to reflect learning objectives’ and, as such, the challenge was to build an online environment that considered the demography of learners, recognised existing ICT skills and perhaps more importantly, understood the vast spectrum of socio-economic issues prevalent with adult ‘return to study’ learners. Garrison (2011) argues that ‘the key is to integrate face-to-face oral and online written communication
in such a way that the strengths of each are fused so that the result is greater than the best of the single constituting elements’ yet this, in the context of the course detailed herein, might be considered ‘aspirational’ rather than practicable and realistic in the sense that this particular ‘blend’ has developed its online elements in a more organic manner to better meet the needs of its learners as-and-when they become apparent. It is recognised that this might not be the most effective approach, yet it is arguably a result of learner feedback and borne of an inherent understanding by curriculum staff of what is appropriate for online-use by this particular group of learners. By evolving the course in response to feedback, and ultimately allowing students to highlight their preferred methods of self-directed learning the course will become a more dynamic and successful animal (Murad et al., 2010). Whilst attempting to make progress with the online aspect of the course, it was considered that a number of technology-based approaches could be employed to serve the online learner, yet it was also deemed to be far too hasty and inappropriate to deploy such technologies without fully understanding the background, needs and expectations of the learners. Without being able to fully guarantee that learners have access to a modern computer with fast internet connection, there are serious issues of inclusion if online discussion, chat rooms, social media, and webinars were to be made a compulsory part of the course. Equally, there needs to be an agreement and acceptance that learners have sufficient access to the appropriate technology to engage and complete the off-campus workload. It is for these reasons that the blended section of the course required careful composition to be as inclusive as possible for a cohort where the
majority of which were unfamiliar with virtual learning environments. It is clear that in preparing our students for university level education, we must also prepare them for course structures that require an online component of self-directed study and asynchronous learning. With these matters duly considered there has arguably been a more ‘gentle’ approach to the inclusion of discussion forums, online assignments, reflective activities (such as blogs) and the use of plagiarism detection software. It must also be recognised that there has been significant efforts to encourage that any classroom-based collaboration is matched with a similar environment online. Success might therefore be determined by, as McConnell (2006) offers, ‘the way in which students are encouraged to participate, share, explore, collaborate, negotiate, present, critically reflect and co-assess’. References Garrison, D.Randy. (2011). E-Learning 21st Century: A Framework for Research and Practice. Routledge: Abingdon Littlejohn, Allison & Pegler, Chris. (2007). Preparing for Blended e-Learning. Routledge: Abingdon Macdonald, Janet (2006). Blended Learning and Online Tutoring. Gower Publishing: Aldershot McConnell, David. (2006). E-Learning Groups and Communities. McGraw-Hill: Maidenhead. Murad MH, Coto-Yglesias F, Varkey P,Prokop LJ and Murad AL. (2010). The effectiveness of self-directed learning in health professions education: a systematic review. Medical Education Vol 44: 1057–1068 Pellow C, Adams J, Elliott S, Murrel K, and Cox D. (2010). The use of e-learning infection prevention programme in the preregistration nursing curriculum. Journal of Infection Prevention Vol. 11 No. 2 pp 55-57.
New Solitudes? Social Media in Teaching Dr Simon Stevenson & Dr Michelle Denby, Doncaster University Centre
Much of the discourse on the use of social media in Higher Education is focused on its supposed collaborative and participatory potential to enhance learning, improve communication and foster engagement. We are encouraged to include e-components in our assessment strategies and embed ‘digital literacy’ skills within our courses. Whilst there are a wealth of case studies attesting to the benefits of using collaborative and social media platforms and applications in the classroom, there is less attention given to the ideological assumptions that underpin the adoption of social media and the effects that its usage has on the learning environment. All too often, the ideals of digital and media literacy become reduced to simply a consideration of the codes of online etiquette and a collection of competencies or ‘transferrable skills’ in using the latest digital tools that take no account of the higher functions of analyzing and evaluating the tools and their impact themselves. This presentation addresses the growing body of work seeking to critically engage with questions about the role and consequences of the widespread integration of social media into
tasks, preferring multiple information streams, seeking a high level of stimulation, and having a low tolerance for boredom’ (Hayles, 2007: 187). Hayles contends that we are in the midst of a generational shift from deep to hyper attention that will necessitate a profound rethinking of educational methodologies: our current syllabi and teaching styles still largely presuppose both an environment conducive to and a cognitive capacity for deep attention. On our own English programme, we have tried to develop integrated seminar and assessment strategies that combine both cognitive modes. These include quantitative approaches to literary analysis using data visualisation tools, investigating the remediation of novels and poems into multimedia apps, building a relational database of important ideas and quotations and using web-based eportfolios and interactive pdfs in place of the traditional essay. Other critics have suggested that the ability to switch between hyper and deep attention will eventually atrophy as the interaction with the hyperlinked digital environment of clicks, ‘likes’, scanning, skimming and switching is actually reconfiguring the
“ ..we are in the midst of a generational shift from deep to hyper attention that will necessitate a profound rethinking of educational methodologies...” education and our lives more generally. In an influential 2007 essay N. Katherine Hayles makes a distinction between ‘hyper’ and ‘deep’ attention. Deep attention is about maintaining focus on a single information stream for a sustained period of time whilst hyper attention is the characterized ‘by switching focus rapidly among different
architecture of our brains. Nicholas Carr’s The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains (2010) examines neurobiological research that shows prolonged engagement with new media objects causes a shift of brain activity from the hippocampus (associated with reasoning and long term memory) to the prefrontal cortex (associated with habitual behavior and
short term memory) (Carr, 2010). These types of studies would seem to suggest exposure to web 2.0 actually erodes our critical capacity, bypassing those brain areas that deal with focused and reflective reasoning in favour of the short term rewards of the next link, the next hit, the next update. Political theorist Jodi Dean uses the term ‘communicative capitalism’ to examine the ways in which these tendencies of social media ‘capture their users in intensive and extensive networks of enjoyment, production and surveillance’ (Dean, 2010: 4) to produce compliant, passive and politically disengaged subjects. Many users of social media are unaware of the degree to which they are undertaking unpaid ‘digital labour’ by creating content, generating valuable social networks and revealing useful market research information and location data that increase the value of the digital platform (see, for example, Fuchs and Sevignani 2013). All this is not to say that we should discourage or stigmatise the use of social media in teaching. These are the tools to hand, and in Bernard Stiegler’s Derridean idiom they are pharmaka – capable of operating as both poison and cure: ‘Intelligence is first and foremost a taking care, of pharmaka through the careful use of pharmaka against the perverse effects of pharmaka’ (Stiegler 2010: 35). As contemporary students and academics we have no choice but to engage with the networked technologies of social media and the internet – these will very soon become as integrated into the learning environment as the toaster is into the kitchen – the task is to be alert to some of the tendencies towards hyper attention, cognitive overload, critical disengagement and digital exploitation that they can bring with them. With the debate about social media increasingly taking place on social media itself, it is more crucial than ever
Bringing learning alive using Augmented Reality Dee Vyas & Nillan Fakira, Manchester Metropolitan University that we give our students the digital literacy skills to understand their online environment – how to be ‘an active citizen rather than simply a passive consumer of what is sold to you, what is taught to you’ (Rheingold 2010) – and to know when to both literally and metaphorically ‘switch off’. References Carr, N. (2010) The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Dean, J. (2010) Blog Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. Fuchs, C. and Sevignani, S. (2013) What is Digital Labour? What is Digital Work? What’s Their Difference? And why do these Questions Matter for Understanding Social Media? In tripleC [online] 11(2): pp.237-293. Available at: http://www.triple-c.at/index. php/tripleC/article/view/461 [Accessed: March 2014]. Hayles, N. K. (2007) ‘Hyper and Deep Attention: The Generational Divide in Cognitive Modes’ in Profession (13): pp.187199. Rheingold, H (2010) ‘Attention, and Other 21st-Century Social Media Literacies’ in EDUCAUSE Review [online] 45(5). Available at: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/ attention-and-other-21st-century-socialmedia-literacies [Accessed: March 2014]. Stiegler, B (2010) Taking Care of Youth and the Generations. Trans. Stephen Barker, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
In 1990, Boeing researcher Tom Caudell first coined the term “Augmented Reality” (AR) (Caudell and Mizell, 1992) to describe a digital display that blended virtual graphics onto a physical reality. AR allows the virtual world to integrate into the real world using interactive media, aimed at engaging the viewer. Traditional passive material becomes immersive, allowing you to view the content on a mobile device. This project encouraged students to engage in creating their own interactive, media-rich portfolio in postcard format mixing real-life with media-rich content to augment reality. Creating the postcards provides rich opportunities for reflection on learning and achievement, while using and developing their digital literacies further through the process of making. Gauntlett (2011) states that making things for ourselves provides self-esteem but also social capital by connecting and collaborating. MMU, Recruitment and Admissions were looking to enhance the engagement possibility with potential students using innovative methods. After a number of small-scale AR interventions and tests, we decided to go ahead using AR at the Open Day in June 2013 to develop a new form of interactive, immersive experience available for any mobile platform. This was the first occasion AR was employed
at the university on such a large scale. Its success was important, as it would provide evidence on the large-scale deployment of AR and success of such a campaign at MMU. An AR postcard was distributed to all Open Day visitors. It introduced and demystified the process of applying for financial support and budgeting for university. The augmented reality content was highly rated in terms of ease of use as well as the quality and content of the videos. A visitor for example commented: “All about the finance which helped to explain it to my parents. It recapped everything I had spoken to the student ambassadors about.” Another said: “I found the student finance video very reassuring as I learnt that the university would be very helpful throughout the student finance application process.” The success of the Open Day provided the opportunity to investigate further how augmented reality could be incorporated to enhance the student experience. The Manchester School of Art hold an annual Graduate Degree show, celebrating the achievements and talents of final year students. We wanted to capture student work in their own words using film and pictures. Combining an image of their work with film, an AR postcard was
created. This was an iterative process to ensure satisfaction by the contentcreator and the facilitator. The idea of the student creating content for this form of media rich experience was a new experience to them. Creating a visual CV based on AR was an extension of this initial project and in collaboration with a student, the content and layout determined, thereby moving away from just having a ‘normal’ CV as a job application. A growing number of firms are adopting the use of video to interview job applicants. A better first impression of candidates using a combination of video and CV rather than their CV only can be gained. A broader assessment of the candidate can be reached using a more visual CV. The graduate student response was: “Having not heard about Augmented Reality before, I was excited to see how the presentation of my practice would work with it. I jumped at the chance to use the new technology and find out how relevant it could be for me. My methods, ideas and three-dimensional pieces, have come together through working on this project. Our collaboration has been really beneficial, and I hope to be able to continue revising the AR CV to create a progressive, professional portfolio.” Interactivity, graduate-generated content were the two most important aspects of the CV.
Contact us: rscsupport@jisc.ac.uk www.jiscrsc.ac.uk
We see AR as providing an opportunity for both learners and teachers to rethink the way they engage in learning and teaching with each other. This redefines the ability of the learner to actively engage with the content.
We are aware of the ‘wow’ factor and the fact that it can evaporate quickly. However, John Kerrigan (Myerscough College) cited Bloxham et al. (2013) uses the phrase ‘mystifying learners’ whereby the learner is drawn into the activity of learning and student-created content is an important part of this opportunity.
“ AR redefines the ability of the learner to actively engage with the content.” References Caudell, T. P. and Mizell, D. (1992) Augmented Reality: An Application of Heads Up Display Technology to Manual Manufacturing Processes. Proc. Hawaii International Conf. on Systems Science, Vol. 2, 659-669. Gauntlett, D. (2011) Making is Connecting, Cambridge Polity Press Bloxham, J., Crawford-Thomas, and A., Wileman, J. (2013) Immersive Learning Experiences through Augmented Reality [Online]. Advancing Education Autumn 2013. Available at: www.naace.co.uk/ eve/2481. [accessed 24 February 2014]