triangulating tel: what's happening; what do students want; and what do staff thing about it?
Post on 24-May-2015
174 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
A MEMBER OF THE RUSSELL GROUP
TRIANGULATING TEL IN HLS:What’s happening; What do stu-dents want; and do staff agree?Peter Reed: Institute of Learning & Teaching
INSTITUTE OF LEARNING & TEACHING
ILT Activity
In response to LGoS, TEL Strategy, etc:
TEL Academic & TEL Support Teams;
A three phase ‘audit’ of TEL across ILT provision.
Current Practice
Staff Perspective Student Perspective
TEL Strategy
Current Practice
Staff Perspective Student Perspective
TEL Strategy
Minimum Standards Online Submission
Lecture Capture
PHASE 1What’s Happening?March - May 2013
Phase 1: What’s Happening?
Involved meeting people(n=40)
And
An audit of VITAL use(~300)
Phase 1: What’s Happening?
Some good (but isolated) practice
Inconsistency in VITAL
Some use of Turnitin (but little formal online submission/feedback)
Recording of lectures/other content is increasingly popular
PHASE 2Staff Survey
n=102July - August 2013
Phase 2: Staff Survey
90%
90% of staff agree with provision of minimum standards (more on this later)
Used MS Word
Used TurnItIn & Grademark
Used Audio Feedback
Used Video Feedback
0 25 50 75 100
92%
28% 62%
48% 12%
7%37%
26%
32%24%
14%
DISAGREE UNAWARE OF LEARN MORE EXPERIENCED
Attitudes & Experience towards electronic marking & feedback
Screencasts
Full ‘live’ lecture capture
Pre-recorded to ‘flip’…
‘Other’ video e.g. interviews
0 25 50 75 100
48%
44% 32%
27%
29%47%
10%
10%15%
19%
Attitudes & Experience towards recording materials
38%
23%
44%
DISAGREE UNAWARE OF LEARN MORE EXPERIENCED
Screencasts
Full ‘live’ lecture capture
Pre-recorded to ‘flip’…
‘Other’ video e.g. interviews
0 25 50 75 100
48%
44% 32%
27%
29%47%
10%
10%15%
19%
DISAGREE UNAWARE OF… LEARN MORE… EXPERIENCED…
Attitudes & Experience towards recording materials
38%
23%
44%
Some concern recordings may impact on attendance
Time
Suppor
t / Tr
ainin
g
Rew
ard S
truct
ure
s
Prio
rities
Ski
lls / L
iter
acie
s
Mot
ivat
ion
Recognition of Barriers to engaging & innovation
61% 32% 31%30%29%5%
PHASE 3Student Survey
n=840October - November 2013
Would like to submit coursework electronically
Would like e-feedback
Would like electronic marks
Would like audio feedback
0 25 50 75 100
55%
DISAGREE INDIFFERENT AGREESTRONGLYAGREE
Attitudes & Experience towards electronic marking & feedback
20%11%
46%24%17%
41%24%17%10%
20%17%26%20%16%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
Would like to submit coursework electronically
Would like e-feedback
Would like electronic marks
Would like audio feedback
0 25 50 75 100
55%
DISAGREE INDIFFERENT AGREESTRONGLYAGREE
Attitudes & Experience towards electronic marking & feedback
20%11%
46%24%17%
41%24%17%10%
20%17%26%20%16%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
Students value feedback (despite some research)
Mostly concerned with e-grades (75% A or SA)
eSubmission popular (69% A or SA) - cost savings
‘Innovative’ approaches such as audio feedback not (38% A or SA%)
Attitudes & Experience towards electronic marking & feedback
Would like to access recorded lectures
Would like synchronised audio with slides
Would like synchronised video with slides
Would like dedicated recordings to watch before class
0 25 50 75 100
48%
DISAGREE INDIFFERENT AGREESTRONGLYAGREE
Attitudes & Experience towards recorded content
17%17%
66%15%
58%17%10%
40%21%21%11%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
Would like to access recorded lectures
Would like synchronised audio with slides
Would like synchronised video with slides
Would like dedicated recordings to watch before class
0 25 50 75 100
48%
DISAGREE INDIFFERENT AGREESTRONGLYAGREE
Attitudes & Experience towards electronic marking & feedback
17%17%
66%15%
58%17%10%
40%21%21%11%
STRONGLY DISAGREE
Students want to access recordings (80% A or SA)
Synchronised Audio & PPT most popular (76% A or SA)
Synchronised Video & PPT is too (65% A or SA)
However….
Attitudes & Experience towards recorded content
Synchronised audio
Pre-r
eco
rded v
ideo
Audio
only
Oth
er
reco
rdin
gs
Synchronised video
50%
33%
1% 7% 9%
Single preferred approach to recorded content
Revisit to clarify
Revise for exam / coursework
92%
87%
7%
56%
46%
Intended use of recorded lectures
70%
Overcome challenges in note-taking
Catch up on missed classes
Overcome concentration
challenges
Instead of attending lectures
9%
Overcome language barriers
Whilst studying at computer
On mobile device e.g. travelling
96%
27%
Context for use of recorded lectures
23%
Multi-tasking
MINIMUM STANDARDS
COMPARING STAFF & STUDENT RESPONSES
Staff & Students were provided a
list
A Welcome to the area
Contact details for Leader
Contact details for others
Module Specification
Timetable / Schedule
Learning Outcomes
Assessment Strategy
Further Reading
Lecture notes/handouts
Past Exam Papers
Online submission
Formative feedback on draft
Online discussion forums
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%93%
88%87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%79%
Student suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
* ***** *
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
72%
47%
65%59%
71%
27%
37%38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%
Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Student v Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%93%
88%87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%79%
Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
72%
47%
65%59%
71%
27%
37%38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%93%
88%87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%79%
Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
72%
47%
65%59%
71%
27%
37%38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%
Statistical TestsPositive correlation between staff & students (r=0.560)
Some significant differences between staff and student responses (p=0.0002)
Significant difference between number of items selected (p=0.0001) - m Staff=9.32: Students=10.91
Significant difference between number of items selected by male and female students (p=0.0012)
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Criteria with largest staff/student difference in Minimum standards
37%
46%
41%34%
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%93%
88%87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%79%
Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
72%
47%
65%59%
71%
27%
37%38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%
Questions
Which criteria do we include?
How much of the student voice is enough?
Demo PSYC310CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
TULIPBB
DemoCSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
DemoCSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
DemoCSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
DemoCSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
DemoCSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
Agreement thus farCriteria to be included automatically…
1. Module Title & Module Code
2. Module Co-ordinator (name and email address)
3. Aims
4. Learning Outcomes
5. Syllabus
6. Teaching & Learning Strategy
7. Assessment requirements
8. Contact hours
9. Disclaimer
Next StepsHerzberg’s Hygiene Factors
Focus groups
What Else?• Free text questions identified
• Students can’t really identify innovation (mobile or general)
• Lots of mobile usage and expectation (89%)
• Lots of reference to apps to support studies
• Lots of problems with relatively simple tech issues with mobile devices such as wifi, email, library access, etc. Leading to drop-in sessions
What Else?
• Students are generally confident with their digital literacies (79%)….
• But some would like opportunity to develop further (31%)
In Summary
• Expectation and demand from students
• Positive attitudes from staff to engage
• Need support
REFERENCES
Bench Image CC BY-NC-ND Flickr User Madhan Kumar Staff Wanted Image CCBY-NC-SA Flickr User LEOL30
Peter ReedLecturer (Learning Technology)Institute of Learning & TeachingFaculty of Health & Life Science
peter.reed@liverpool.ac.uk@reedyreedles#54332
top related