The tool set developed by MUSKET consists of three components:

• the Transform Tool (Doc 2 XML);
• the OWL Tool (XML-2-OWL); and
• the Semantic tool.

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 possibility of using vocabularies already built
• The suggestion of using a UML meta-model of key concepts.

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.

Geetha Abeysinghe

g.abeysinghe@mdx.ac.uk

The tool set developed by MUSKET consists of three components:

• the Transform Tool (Doc 2 XML);
• the OWL Tool (XML-2-OWL); and
• the Semantic tool.

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 possibility of using vocabularies already built
• The suggestion of using a UML meta-model of key concepts.

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.

Geetha Abeysinghe

g.abeysinghe@mdx.ac.uk

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.
Audio Generic Feedback using Jing – http://www.jingproject.com/
Walkthrough audio and video feedback where the discussion between tutor and student is recorded as they ‘walkthrough’ a piece of coursework, so that at a later date, when the original conversation may be fading the student can listen again to the recording
The ASSET project: audio/video feed-forward and feedback using Cam Studio and Flip Video (http://www.reading.ac.uk/asset)
Audio/video feedback using Camtasia
Personal Response systems (PRS) used to instantly survey understanding and increase active learning in class

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

· Consistency

· How do I know I am being effective and efficient?

· How can I get students to engage with feedback?

· Interoperability

· 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:

• Large 1st Year Biology Class
• Practical Methods in Physics
• MSc Microbiology Research Methods
• Roman Republic
• Editing the Renaissance
• Environment and Sustainability
• Criminal Law
• Communications at Work

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.

University of Coventry (18-03-2010)

Aims of the Assembly

· To explore the question of what staff development needs arise when a new capture technology is being introduced into an institution

· To produce relevant collective resources for use by the wider HE community based on common and divergent experiences in implementing capture technologies for learning and teaching

· To pool expertise and surface/identify related issues

Participants

The Assembly was attended by:

Paul Bailey (JISC)
Phil Bradley (Newcastle University)
John Couperthwaite (University of Birmingham)
John Davies (University of Sussex)
Amanda Hardy (Coventry University)
Juliet Hinrichsen (Coventry University)
Jenny Mackness (JISC)
Gameel Nasser (University of Birmingham)
Kris Roger (London School of Economics and Political Science)
Charles Shields (Loughborough University)
Carol Summerside (Newcastle University)

Findings from the ELTAC project

David Morris welcomed participants and briefly outlined the key findings from the ELTAC project

1. The ‘automated’ bit of lecture capture is difficult. Colleagues won’t necessarily take it on board.
2. The meaning of ‘lecture’ is very broad.
3. The conception of what is ‘captured’ has changed for the ELTAC team.
4. The licence costs of proprietary lecture capture software can be a barrier to scalability
5. There are organisational barriers – many ‘bits’ of the University needs to be involved to install the technology into lecture theatres, but liaison between them can be difficult.
6. Lecture capture is less about embedding, automating and technology and more about how lecture capture should be used in the broader framework of teaching and whether it makes a significant difference to teaching and learning.

Programme for the day

The Assembly was planned as a workshop-style day focussing on purposeful community building and the production of a scoping document, management briefing and scenarios to draw out key teaching and learning, infrastructure and managerial issues for use in staff development. The outputs from the day will be attributed to authors and their institutions and also be available for wider dissemination across the HE sector.

Lecture Capture – key issues

The outputs from the day were informed by initial discussion and sharing of context and issues at individual institutions, which in turn informed the production of a scoping document, management briefing and scenarios. These issues included the following:

· Practical issues

Technical: Such as server problems when scaling up, bugs in the system, people unplugging wires

Room bookings: Some institutions match rooms to student numbers, which makes lecture capture impossible for some groups; Room booking needs to be automated to reduce administration time; Bookings need to be scheduled

Audio: Quality issues; Use of microphones in small venues; Ensuring microphones are switched on

Video: Is it always needed?

Support: How will this be provided?

· Pedagogical issues

Some lecturers feel that lecture capture restricts their teaching practice

Lecturers may need to change the way they teach

Re-usability – what are the implications?

What is it needed for?

What is a good learning package?

How can lecture capture be used to increase student engagement?

Do students become over-dependent on video?

Does lecture capture encourage students to become passive learners?

What is the purpose of lectures?

· Institutional issues

Coordination across different departments

Scalability of Echo 360. Alternatives such as Matterhorn might need to be considered

Scepticism and resistance from lecturers

Suspicion from lecturers that lecturer capture might lead to cuts in staffing

Suspicion from the Students Union executive about the motives for using lecture capture

Are there opportunities for the University to generate income?

Will lecture capture influence competitive advantage?

What are the costs versus benefits?

What are the legal/IPR implications? Who owns the materials?

What are the policy issues?

The Lecture Capture Support site

The ELTAC Team demonstrated the Lecture Capture Support site http://cuba.coventry.ac.uk/lecturecapture/ which is being developed as part of their benefits realisation project. This site is undergoing a ‘repackaging’ process, which will feature a visual redesign and the addition of further content over the next few months. Currently it includes support materials and also examples of electronic lecture capture from external institutions, many present at the assembly.

Developing Guidance Materials

During the afternoon small groups started to outline guidance materials and case studies addressing the issues raised in the morning aimed at supporting practitioners and institutional managers to implement electronic lecture capture within their institutions. The drafts were to be written up by the project team as the basis for guidance material with contributions and acknowledgements from those present.

Future collaboration and community building

The ELTAC team is keen to continue collaborating with interested institutions and to expand this network and seek further mechanisms for sharing of expertise and information. Three possible avenues to explore in relation to seeking support in this are:

JISC Procureweb – http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/services/jiscprocureweb.aspx

JISC InfoNet – http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/

HEA Special Interest Groups – http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/

Conclusion

The Assembly was an enjoyable, productive and successful event which provided participants with plenty of opportunity for discussion and sharing of practice. It was clear that lecture capture is of interest to an increasing number of institutions and that collaborative work and the creation of a community will support further development. Future ELTAC Benefits Realisation project activities will also help to support interested institutions.

With thanks to Juliet Hinrichsen, Amanda Hardy and the ELTAC team for organising and hosting this Assembly.

Jenny Mackness (JISC SSRB Support)

The day ended with an open discussion looking at the pros and cons of using these technologies for feedback provision and included an exploration of the challenges faced when adopting new technologies at an institutional level; colleagues agreed that there was a need for institutions to maintain their desire for innovation, which was felt to be particularly important in the current financial climate.

The ASSET team are now looking to the future and are hoping to work closely with existing networks to support innovations in feedback provision. Further details of the Project Assembly, including downloadable copies of the presentations, are now available on the ASSET website http://www.reading.ac.uk/asset/Dissemination/asset-ProjectAssembly.aspx

Here’s a brief timetable of the day

10.30:
- reception, introductions etc

11.00-16.00:
(break for lunch at 12.15)
- personas
- user testing (exercises, best practice)
- questions, discussion

16.00:
We’ll have an optional activity (attendees will be informed by Friday, 19th Feb)

If you’d like to sign up, or find out more about the Assembly please

email katy@caret.cam.ac.uk, or call 01223 765357

http://www.uclan.ac.uk/health/research/tag/retention_show_tell.php

Wednesday 9th December, the University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN), Preston.

The assembly was well attended by 25 people from the following institutions: UCLAN including three UCLAN students, the University of Hertfordshire, Liverpool John Moores University, University of Cumbria, University of Bradford, University of London, Queen Margaret University, University of Bolton, University of Oxford, University of Westminster, Edge Hill University and Leicester College.

The programme in the morning included presentations from:

Lucy Warman TAG (The Alternative Guide to UCLAN) Project, UCLAN

TAG is a JISC funded research project that aims to explore the impact the creation of a dynamic, interactive, web based platform of support, which enables potential students to develop realistic expectations of HE will have on retention.

Lucy Stone HELLO (Higher Education Lifelong Learning Opportunities) Project, Leicester College

HELLO is a JISC funded project which uses Moodle and Mahara to support part-time students in accessing the curriculum, social networking and forming links with external employers

Becka Currant Develop Me! University of Bradford

Develop Me! is an umbrella term for a number of different activities all designed to support students effectively during their time at University. The activities help students manage the transition into and initial engagement with Higher Education level studies, develop their skills and confidence and ultimately succeed at University.

Tim Fernando Erewhon, University of Oxford

Erewhon has produced “Mobile Oxford” a new service for the University of Oxford as well as the citizens of its city. It provides a wealth of information and location sensitive services that are instantly accessible on any time of web capable mobile phone, giving students, staff and visitors the information they need simply and effectively.

A common theme which ran through all the projects was the way in which technology is being used to aid student retention. Critical to this process is liaison between various groups – the students themselves, the students’ union, student services, University central services and external agencies, such as employers and local councils. The ability to overcome resistance to the project developments and effectively communicate and work with these different groups was seen as critical to the success of these projects.

Full details of the presentations can be found on the TAG website at http://www.uclan.ac.uk/health/research/tag/presenter_project_information.php

The afternoon session was facilitated by Lawrie Phipps, the JISC Institutional Innovation Programme Manager. Lawrie introduced the JISC Building Capacities Programme, which aims to provide funding to Institutions who wish to implement the outputs and recommendations of previously funded JISC projects. For further information about the Building Capacity Programme on Lawrie’s blog.

The day provided a very good mix of informative presentations interspersed with plenty of time for questions and discussion. There is clearly further scope for a number of institutions to work together to share strategies for improving student retention. The Assembly was successful in initiating this process.

With many thanks to the TAG team at UCLAN for their hospitality.

Jenny Mackness (Create Support Team member)

12-12-2009

We had 13 participants, mostly from within Cambridge University. They included computer officers and teaching office administrators, who are all users of the Teaching Office Database (TODB) software. In addition we were delighted to host Dr. Cecilia Loureiro-Koechlin (representing the JISC BRII project) and Dr. Bridget Taylor (DAISY project), both from Oxford University, as well as Jenny Mackness, who represented JISC.

Programme

We had a general overview of the project, followed by lunch at a nearby restaurant, which helped break the ice. After lunch there were five presentations, three by MEAoT people and two by our guests from Oxford.

We then had a lively round table discussion about software distribution model.

The meeting ended with a visit to the Sargent, Sickert and Spencer exhibition at the Fitzwilliam museum.

We had an opportunity to hear from users, software developers, computer officers and external projects, and the picture that emerged gave us a detailed understanding of the pros and cons of various software distribution models. The relaxed atmosphere of the meeting contributed to the free exchange of views and we all benefited from it.

Detailed report

A more detailed report can be found at our project blog:

http://modular-e-admin.blogspot.com/2009/12/modular-e-administration-of-teaching.html

Avi Naim
(an10007@cam.ac.uk)