The SSBR team will facilitate a series of up to 26 thematic project cluster-group meetings or “assemblies”.Assemblies may take many different forms: seminars, workshops, mini-conferences, shared planning activities, site visits, etc. What they must do is bring projects together in an assembly. Each project will be asked to host one assembly in the duration of the programme. (Guidelines for hosting an assembly.) Each cluster might hold about 4 assemblies. Assemblies may be blended, face-to-face, online, distributed or collocated. The programme will be providing the Elluminate audiographic environment for distributed live meetings but projects would be encouraged to run their assemblies in their preferred environments as they wished. Second Life will be available for those that want to try multi-user virtual environments (MUVEs). Support can be given on the choice and operation of learning environments for project assemblies. Projects can apply through SSBR to the JISC for additional funding to support their assemblies using this form.
The table below summarises the Assemblies held and will provide links to related reports
The day provided an opportunity to share and discuss the issues if identify management in relation to work based learning and continuing professional development. The participants shared what they hoped to get out the day were looking for the following:
Identity management and security of information can still be a major barrier to engaging work based learners and employers but institutions in the Lifelong learning and Workforce development programme are finding approaches that can work such as:
Serge Ravet from EIfEL explored the benefits of an Identity-Centric Internet: a new Internet of Subjects Manifesto. Link to video of slides
Serge emphasised the limitations of identity technologies and the fragmentation of our identity, hence the need to see identity within a specific context. The importance of individuals using identity as a way to show progress of how they have evolved as an individual, presented through portfolios. A model was presented that made data open and sought o identify the context rather than the people as a way of managing identity.
David Sowden looked at What do Users want? Views and concerns about sharing personal data.
Highlighting the findings of the CPD-Eng project. Link to his presentation at: //prezi.com/zo3xxbc-z5su/id-management.
An audience activity explore the user needs of identity management. The outcomes included a set of basic requirements
They also identified as set of more demanding requirements that show the challenges of identity management
Scott Wilson, CETIS Talked about some of the current technical developments.
He looked at how the traditional existing e-learning systems don’t support the WBL relationship very well i.e. different VLEs used by institutions when an employer needs access to learners information/learners need access to learning systems at different institutions. So one approach is to produce a quick interface just for the purpose and keep the data separate to interface. He provided several references and examples below
Examples that are looking to provide a single interface
Scott also explored the different models of linking institutions and employers that illustrates some of the complexity and issues on building trusted relationships.
The different models are available here
These models illustrated the many-to-many relationship management that needs to be handled by HEIs working with employers and the need or a collaborative for effective and efficient engagement.
George Roberts, JISC SSBR looked at Personal identity management for professional development – from the end-user’s perspective
This explored several areas of identify and brought us back to the fact that we are not dealing with the identity of the individual, but also within their context. These could be concerned with LLL record, access and authentication and the policy and law links the data with an individual. Education is one of the key contexts of a personal identity.
This presentation suggested the ideas of using profiles to see if individuals have experience we can use to APL them into courses. This is not something was explored by any of the projects but a similar project on admissions has looked at the role of e-portfolios for UCAS entry and also the use of the MIAP Personal Learning Record to support UCAs applications.
The day focussed more on discussing identity and the nature of trusted relationships than showing examples of how the technical issues of identity management and trusted relationships have been addressed. The presentations and discussions demonstrated that this is a complex area and there are several areas still to be addressed.
Although several institutions have been able to implement technical solutions to identify management for employers to access institutional systems, this does not mean that the issues of managing identify management have been solved. As the SAMSON has shown and Scott Wilson from CETIS suggests, using a separate portal to aggregate data from several providers is a recognised solution to handle the multiple relationships and access management issues in this type of situation.
Venue: Aston Business School, Birmingham, B4 7ET
(2 minute walk from Aston Lakeside Conference Centre – see Map)
When: Thursday 19 May 2011 from 10.00 – 3.30
Please complete the registration form.
Although systems can be created with high levels of security, the onus is on the individual to manage these systems correctly and fully understand the possible outcomes. As institutions how can we solve these problems and create system to assist the user in their management of personal data? Perhaps we should apply elementary principles of good system design :
The solution to the management of personal data is perhaps in the dis-aggregation of the currently large and vulnerable silos of personal data and their re-aggregation around the individuals into personal data stores. It is not the construction of thicker and higher walls around vulnerable silos that can create the conditions for more trustworthy Internet: it is a radical reorganisation of the distribution of personal data around the individual, under his/her control. These are issues that the CPD-Eng project have discussed during scoping and team meetings and look forward to the opportunity to discuss further these and other issues with other projects within an ‘assembly’ format.
David Sowden (CPD-Eng project manager)
Contact person: Patsy Clarke – SSBR team member (firstname.lastname@example.org)
The resources from the TEL-WFD assembly, held at UWIC on 10 January, are now available online. They enable those who were unable to attend the assembly to access the presentations and those who did to revisit them. Edited videos, with longer ones chunked for ease of access, are accompanied by the illustrative slides from the day’s presentations. All can be accessed by scrolling down to ‘Resources from JISC Assembly – 10 January 2011′ at:
Date: January 10th 2010, 10.30 – 4.00
Venue: UWIC Llandaff Campus, Western Avenue, Cardiff, CF5 2YB.
Host project: TEL-WFD (UWIC)
Partner project: WELL (Bradford)
Contact person: Richard Staniforth (email@example.com)
The focus the Assembly is on the scope for maximising the impact and enhancing the sustainability of our projects by making best use of evidence of achievement whether derived directly through formal evaluation or other evidence of the value of project outputs.
UPDATED PROGRAMME including Elluminate sessions
10.30: Registration, Coffee and croissants
10.45 : Introduction: Order of the day
11.00: Keynote: Rachel Harris of Inspire Research Glasgow – Maximising Impact, assembling and leveraging the evidence base
Elluminate Session 1100 -1145
11.45: Effective Practice, Evaluation and Reflection 1 – TEL-WFD UWIC: Compelling Reasons. Jeff Lewis uses his experience of the application of web conferencing technology for developing the teaching of practical skills to dental laboratory technicians to illustrate the development of a persuasive case for sustainment. This session involves a practical demonstration for attendees.
12.30: Andrew Haldane – Benefits Analysis-a practical exercise designed to help with, for example the preparation of a “pitch” to senior management or in d the introduction to a more detailed paper presenting the case for sustainment.
13.30: WELL project- Bradford University Effective Practice, Evaluation and Reflection 2.
14.15: Andrew Haldane and David lloyd: Reflective exercise illustrating a simple process for capturing and structuring the experiential lessons-learned from a project for use in dissemination outputs. This session is a workshop with attendees.
14,45: Peter Chatterton: Making best use of the JISC Guide to Sustaining and Embedding Innovations
15.30: Rachel Harris: Review of the day
Elluminate session ends 15.45
15.45: Tea Coffee Welsh Cakes and networking wrap-up
The aim of this assembly includes capturing and communicating effectively this evidence in order to demonstrate the benefits of sustaining and replicating our work. Less tangible, but nonetheless useful, benefits may also be derived by reflecting upon and disseminating the experiential learning that can help us and others to build upon the foundations that we have laid during the lifetime of our projects.
Our invited speaker is Dr Rachel Harris of Inspire Research Ltd. Rachel is currently working with JISC providing evaluation support to the Curriculum Design and Delivery projects. The Delivery projects are coming to the end of their two-year funding, and Rachel will draw relevant parallels with how those projects are seeking to maximise their impact.
Short sessions on how the TEL-WFD and WELL projects have addressed these issues will aim to stimulate debate and Peter Chatterton will lead a session on making best use of the JISC Guide to Sustaining and Embedding Innovations. The programme has some flexibility so if any other intending participants have in mind a short input that could stimulate discussion around this theme please let us know.
We plan to include two short practical exercises, one on the effective communication of project benefits and the other a snapshot reflection for capturing key lessons-learned, structured as: What went well? Why did it succeed (and what evidence do we have)? If you were to start again, what would you do differently? What have you learned that is specific to your project? And Words of Wisdom- reflections of value to others.
We will aim to “harvest” the contributions of all participants in order produce a synthesis of the various inputs to the event. If you are interested in making a specific contribution or in joining us, either in person or face to face, or should you simply need more information then please contact Richard Staniforth ; firstname.lastname@example.org . If you are planning to travel by car please note that spaces are limited. Please try let us know in good time as visitor spaces will be reserved on a first come first served basis.
Assembly report from FOA, 20 October 2010
Sandra Winfield from the Centre for International ePortfolio Development at the University of Nottingham introduced the session with a brief slideshow outlining the idea of the ‘portal’ in all its senses, starting from the classic dictionary definition, then moving on to think about the possibilities and challenges it offers for institutions and systems. We then divided into two discussion groups to consider a series of questions in the areas of Environment, Technology, Engagement, Support, Collaboration, Training, Personalisation, Strategy and Quality, Communications, Resources, Barriers and Responsibilities. The brief comments recorded on sticky notes are transcribed in the attached PowerPoint; these were fixed to the walls so that both groups could see and add to comments made by the other. These were then compared to findings from project work to see if we could draw any general conclusions.
We found that the idea of the Portal as a gateway to institutional data offers apparently infinite potential but in doing so raises many issues, tensions and apparent contradictions. While it needs to be customisable and personalisable, it also needs careful management; while it needs to be learner-centred, it is not really learner owned. ID management raises the issue of individuals with multiple roles. Making data and systems available to users in flexible, accessible and customisable ways has implications for security.
What became clear was the need for clear, well-defined overall strategies, management and governance to support freedom while avoiding anarchy. Where vision is lacking the people are perishing.
Powerpoint slides of comments on sticky-notes contributed from small group discussions during the Assembly
As part of the Festival of Assemblies in Oxford, the ePPSME-BR project led an assembly on developing a community of practice for e-portfolio pedagogies for work-based and life-long learning. Participants represented 6 universities as well as JISC. More details are available in the ePCoP Assembly report, including future plans for online and asynchronous discussions.
TELSTAR (UCLAN) and PINEAPPLE (Plymouth) led an assembly at the Festival of Assemblies, Oxford on 20 October 2010. The focus of the assembly was :
Development of Systems: How do Institutions cope with APL?
Complicated non-standardised process;
Increase in HEI’s using ePortfolios to link to the APEL process.
With increased fees planned the demand for APEL should increase which raises many issues:
Currently within some institutions assessment is graded as either Pass or Fail. As flexible frameworks increase in availability this could have a negative impact on final grades.
4. The Future
Staff who advocate APEL need to be supported by their institutions to enable the APEL process to be supported centrally and incorporated into the wider promotion of options available at universities. Organisational polices should be readily available on websites and in prospectus’ to help widen the demand and awareness of APEL.
Flexible frameworks are increasingly becoming available which will create a higher demand for APEL. The use of technology could reduce the burden of administration resources required to facilitate the APEL process. Institutions should acknowledge the evaluation arising out of current JISC projects trialling this, such as the TELSTAR Project.
5. Some PINEAPPLE Key Issues
Some of the issues on which PINEAPPLE has been reflecting were raised for discussion at the Assembly.
A number of these can only be addressed by the institution itself and will to a large extent be governed by the institution’s choice of business model, which should in turn, be governed by the role it intends APEL to play. For example, is the purpose of APEL to:
In any of these cases, except the first, the APEL regulations should be part of a wider mix of policies, processes and staff development to achieve the desired aim and to ensure equality of treatment throughout an institution. This is important as it seems to be not uncommon that regulations are interpreted idiosyncratically throughout an institution, and/or exemptions to parts of the regulations are given to some faculties/departments.
Early feedback on the PINEAPPLE tool suggests that staff often feel overwhelmed when dealing with an APEL application on their own. They report that having a software tool to guide and record their actions gives a feeling of safety and validates their decisions. We hope to explore these perceptions in a little more depth.
5.1 Assessing APEL
It was mentioned that learners may be deterred by the amount of work required to put together a portfolio of evidence and reflection, such that some prefer to do the module. Are we over-assessing APEL students when compared to students who take a module in the usual way?
When discussing currency in relation to APEL, what this means will vary between subject disciplines. It is also the case that APEL should be assessing the learning and not the experience; so if a claimant is evidencing their learning today, based on an experience they had 5 years ago, what does currency mean?
It is possible to APEL modules that count towards the classification of the final award. Some institutions deal with this by omitting the APEL’d modules from the calculation and adjusting their formula.
5.2 Group APEL – is it worth it
Of those who were familiar with this approach it seemed that it is fraught with difficulties. Not least, because each individual will have their own experiences from their lives, employment history and other areas.
If the institutional policies are sufficiently agile and flexible this could be partially circumvented by accrediting informal or non-assessed inhouse training.
APEL/APCL a claim involving both of these can be very complex. However, the regulations of individual institutions may preclude such a claim from being considered.
5.3 Role split between APEL adviser and assessor/APL board
Universities do not have a problem with a single tutor teaching and then marking an assessment so why is there a tendency to split these roles for APEL. It was suggested that institutions tend to be over-cautious in new areas and this may be the reason.
5.4 Timing of applications
There is huge variation between time constraints on placed on making an APEL application (+ 6 months to -3 weeks from module start date).
5.5 Module cost
This is another area that varies, though charging either the full cost of a module or half the cost is fairly common.
5.6 Room occupancy
This can be an issue for HE in FE staff teaching on foundation degrees. It is a formula based on frequency of use and occupancy that is used by OFSTED as part of its inspections of FE. However this metric may then be used in HE in FE management where it becomes a deterrent to promotion of APEL.
6. APEL Policies
If anyone is wishing to share their institutional policy with the Pineapple project please forward details to Neil Witt email@example.com.
The main aim of the assembly was to share our experience and demonstrate the tools developed to the JISC (and the rest) community. Even more importantly we needed feedback and input from other JISC projects and experts on the work done so far. The focus was more on the XCRI side of the work the project has carried out.
The tool set developed by MUSKET consists of three components:
Although there still remains a lot of work to do, the tools are at a very early beta version stage where they could be demonstrated.
From the MUSKET point of view, the day was more than a success. There was a good mix of people varying from totally new to XCRI to field experts bringing different views and perspectives to the day. There were rich discussions regarding the work already being carried out on XCRI in various JISC projects to many paths still open to pursue.
Alan Paull started the day by giving an informal but interesting introduction to XCRI, its inception and the various avenues of investigation it has taken. The teams from the University of Nottingham and Liverpool shared their experiences and work done. Two important outcomes for MUSKET from the day:
The next stage for us is to look at vocabularies and semantics in order to make our tools usable by any businesses, employer or individual from outside the academic world who may wish to follow a particular programme. Following the assembly there has already been collaborative meeting s with UWIC on MUSKET’s work on converting word documents to xml via UML model mappings.
We hope to have further discussions and collaborations at the meetings on the 22nd July in the West Midlands.
This one day conference, held on 14 April 2010 was hosted by The University of Reading, and was one of a series of national HEA-sponsored seminars.
The aim of the event was to explore a range of tools and methods for giving rapid and timely feedback in ways which stimulate and support students’ learning in the ‘digital age’. It was hoped that by attending this event participants would
i) have a greater understanding of when and how technology, such as the use of video, may be used to enhance the timeliness and effectiveness of feed-forward and feedback provision and
ii) develop a greater awareness of how technology may be used to support strategic priorities, such as enhancing innovation in teaching and learning.
Forty-eight delegates representing 14 different institutions were welcomed to the event by the University of Reading’s Pro-Vice Chancellor for Teaching and Learning, Professor Rob Robson. Erica Morris, Senior Adviser for Quality Enhancement and Assessment at the HEA, then briefly outlined the work of the HEA in promoting research and evidence-based practice and explained that one outcome of the Seminar Series would be a briefing paper outlining key issues for practice.
The programme for the day was planned by Julian Park and Anne Crook to enable collaborative exploration of issues relating to feedback and feed forward, through a series of interactive activities designed to promote discussion and highlight key aspects of quality feedback. Delegates were first asked to consider the question ‘How good is my feedback now?’ by comparing their own practice to a number of quotes about experiences of feedback from staff and students at the University of Reading. This brief activity confirmed that the experience is very similar across different institutions.
There then followed a ‘round robin’ activity where delegates were organised into small groups to visit each of six ‘stations’ demonstrating the use of different approaches and technologies for supporting and enhancing feedback and feed forward. These included:
Interactive Assessment Management System (IAMS) – an online system (via Blackboard) for managing coursework that enables both administrative and academic staff to organise assignment scheduling and coursework submission. Students receive a work submission receipt by email and are able to track progress with marking.
Whilst visiting each station delegates were asked to consider the questions:
· What technologies currently exist to support feedback provision?
· Can technology enhance the quality and efficiency of my feedback?
This led to identification of a list of issues and points for further consideration:
· Diversity of feedback
· Applicability of methods
· Do students recognise feedback?
· Staff and student training
· How do I know I am being effective and efficient?
· How can I get students to engage with feedback?
· Different types of learners and response to feedback
· Opportunities for distance learning
· Risks associated with new technologies
Delegates then worked again in small groups on a semi-hypothetical case study of their choice, to determine what formative and summative assessment would be used for the case study module, issues relating to feedback and feed forward and the technologies that would be used. Case studies that delegates could select from included:
A key issue for all the groups was to consider how technology could be used to keep a balance between efficiency in terms of staff time and quality of the student learning experience.
The outcome of this activity was a 2-3 minute video produced by each group which served to provide feedback for the other groups and to illustrate the ease and speed with which video feedback can be produced.
The day ended with a panel discussion. Panel members were:
Rod Cullen – Manchester Metropolitan University
Shirley Williams – University of Reading
Elizabeth Page – University of reading
Paul Orsmond – Staffordshire University
Steve Maw – University of Leeds
Julian Park – University of Reading
Discussion points included:
· How can teaching colleagues be encouraged to engage with feedback and feed forward?
· How can we help students to understand what we mean by feedback?
· How can we help students adjust to the differences in feedback provision at university in comparison with their pre-university experiences?
· Is the academic framework within which we work suitable for the changes we want to make?
· How does student-centred learning affect the teacher’s role?
· What evidence base do we have that innovative use of technology re: feedback and feed forward is actually effective?
Despite a very busy and interactive programme, delegates were extremely well ‘fed and watered’ throughout the day and there was plenty of opportunity for networking and discussion.
The event was closed at 3.30 pm by the Pro- Vice Chancellor for Teaching and Learning, who thanked participants and organisers for a very successful, useful and enjoyable day.
26 January 2010
The Co-genT project team hosted a face-to-face workshop on frameworks at the University of Gloucestershire (UoG) Oxstalls campus on 26 January 2010. The event was organised in collaboration with the University of Wolverhampton’s ePPSME Project team, and we were also joined on the day by colleagues from UCLAN’s Telstar Project.
The event began with a context-setting presentation from Professor Stephen Hill (Director of Teaching and Learning Innovation, UoG), focusing on the impact of Government policy directives within the sector and how institutional frameworks have been developed by UoG in partnership with other bodies to facilitate employer engagement and a ‘demand-led’ marketplace in HE (http://resources.glos.ac.uk/tli/lets/projects/cogent/index.cfm). The assembly moved on to discuss the theoretical and practical issues of relevance to the Lifelong Learning and Workforce Development strand of projects which need to be addressed if HEIs are to be able to meet the expectations generated by national initiatives.
The assembly considered in detail how key factors impact on the negotiation process with employers, such as the definition of co-funding, the need for standardised contract terms, flexibility to accommodate changes in circumstances and the requirement for a clear return to the employers on their investment. From an academic viewpoint, there is also a need to add value rather than simple aggregate credits, and ensure that the quality of provision is consistent across both work-based learning and standard course modules in terms of the depth of learning appropriate to HE level. The assembly also discussed structural and cultural factors within institutions, and the imperative to ensure sustained financial viability of teaching and learning models within a context of substantial and continuing cuts in public funding.
It was recognised that employer engagement is still a relatively new venture in many areas of HE. A pedagogy needs to be established for work-based learning to define and discuss its principles and values, and a solutions-orientated approach is required to address the many practical issues involved. The assembly suggested that the Higher Education Academy Subject Centres could take a lead role in facilitating progress, eg by providing seminars and publications to support employer engagement across the sector.
A full report on the Frameworks Assembly is available on the Co-genT project website at http://resources.glos.ac.uk/tli/lets/projects/cogent/