A summary of where we are so far: Outputs diary T and L bid
Outstanding tasks:
2. Prepare a presentation for the ITTE Conference on July 2nd.
3. Submit the Final Report.
We shared our research so far in the cracker barrel session of the conference.
Tutor views: An Explain Everything presentation summarising the data – see page above.
Student views: Three Adobe Voice videos from the data collected – see page above.
Case Studies: a post (Kathryn), a video (Helen) and a ThingLink (Jean) – see each page above.
This represented our work in progress.
We now need to use the data we have collected to identify recommendations and formulate them into a tool kit to support tutors.
A quick meeting to discuss the format and content of:
Present: Belinda, Helen, Jean, Julie (apologies, Claire, Kathryn)
The content will be presented as a series of links to short video / audio summaries of research data and case studies.
It might be useful to have used some of the commonly used tools by tutors so that people who explore the links get a sense of each one?
Jean to draft using material from the bid (needs submitting by 16th May) – I’ll send this around when I’ve had a go at it. The conference is on Saturday 2nd July if anyone wants to come.
1pm in Sulgrave 010
Attending: Jean Edwards, Julie Jones, Helen Caldwell, Belinda Green
Apologies: Claire Paterson, Kathryn Peckham
Updated plan here: Outputs diary T and L bid
Output 1
Ethics for student focus groups gained (thanks to Claire).
Information for students notice written and circulated to staff to add to NILE sites and modules w/b April 11th.
Data from staff questionnaire collated and presented by Claire.
Available here: Digital Assessment Project – Staff Responses)
Original data available here: survey_20160226 03-48-34
Next actions for output 1:
Student focus groups:
CP suggested (via email) one to one interviews if we get insufficient responses from students to make up groups.
BG suggested ways contacting students other than through NILE modules: target student reps in the School of Education via Samantha (Sammi) Wright Student Democracy – JJ to contact Sammi to discuss this and possibly go into student sessions and ask for volunteers (not our own students)
Output 2
Next actions for output 2:
Design the artefact to use to share the information at the T and L conference on 17th May 2016.
This will use augmented reality through QR codes and Aurasmas attached to physical objects and origami.
Output 3 Case Studies
Next actions for output 3:
Guidance on length
BG suggested we look at the case studies on the LearnTech blog
Visual content within the blog posts as examples
Set date for completion of each case study to add to digital artefact – before 17th May.
We might make reference back to the ‘Out of the Box’ egs (use DB if necessary for the third case study) ILT Out of the Box here
Jean to discuss the EY case study with Kathryn week beginning 18th April.
Other – dissemination:
UN T and L Conference 17th May 2016.
Three questions set for cracker barrel session in the afternoon:
With the use of digital technology in mind:
Who will be there? (Jean Y, Julie, Helen N, Belinda Y, Claire, Kathryn )
Next actions: more detailed planning of the cracker barrel session
Other possible dissemination:
ALT Conference – 5th to 8th September 2016 University of Warwick https://altc.alt.ac.uk/2016/
Call for proposals is now closed (just missed it – it was 30th March) apologies.
ITTE – 2nd July London (Helen’s recommendation) proposals by May 16th These can be:
Fitting into conference strand:
Other – finance:
14th April – Jean requested a list of how much has been charged to the code so far. Looking back through emails I can find this so far:
Jean (3 X FDLT work-based students / L4 4000 word assignments x 12 plus two hours for moderation)
Julie (15 hours FDLT teaching = 3 days)
Helen (NIkki Wise marking)
Kathryn (none)
Claire (UniTemps)
Belinda
Wednesday March 23rd
Location – S014
Attending: Julie Jones, Claire Paterson, Jean Edwards, Belinda Green
Apologies:
Staff questionnaire: Claire has the data – and can put it into a document for us to looks at and interpret.
Collecting data from students – Claire has been responding to feedback from colleagues with regards to ethics. The material is ready and David Preece can confirm it through Chair’s Action with the Ethics Committee.
Inviting students – could be done through NILE rather than by using individual tutors, Julie will find the email about how to do this and pass it on to Claire. If Claire contacts students this is neutral, no influence from tutors. Dates can be set and groups can be mixed. Lunchtime slots of about half an hour. Julie will send the draft to Claire, Claire can adjust then Julie will add it to NILE.
Dissemination:
Sharing data at the T and L Conference – 17th May – cracker barrel session in the afternoon – work in progress.
Three questions
How do we design and construct the assignment? (assignment guidance, rubrics, teaching and learning decisions)
How do we guide and support the students? (written and video guidance, teaching and learning)
What is the student outcome? (from case studies eg blog, electronic poster, ThingLink)
Ideas and materials from the survey, interviews and case studies would inform the writing of this digital toolkit.
There will be opportunities for continued dissemination eg ALT conference (6th / 7th / 8th Sept) – would need booking before end of June (funding).
Jean to follow up Kathryn to see if she is still participating. Group presentation (Peter Goy) as an alternative to Kathryn’s input, or offer support with Kathryn’s
Communicating our findings – QR codes / Aurasma / cubes?
Monday 29th February 3.30pm.
Location – S120
Attending – Jean, Julie, Belinda, Clare
Apologies – Helen
Output 1 – the questionnaire
29 participants and the questionnaire is now closed.
Claire has started coding the data from the questionnaire and themes have started coming out – re-watching, tutor consistency, distance learning, 24 hour access, better correlation to the outcomes, absentees can catch up, (could it increase absence?),
We’re aiming for a group from each division and those on campus here. Julie to email tutors who have identified themselves as willing to be part of the research in terms of student focus groups. Claire to draft possible prompts to use and approaches to use depending on the group dynamics at the introductory point. Tutors need to remind about where and what the online guidance was.
Claire to send draft list of questions tomorrow, Julie to look at.
Aim to do some interviews before Easter and some after.
Ethics statements needed and needs approval from Ethic Committee? Jean to email Ming to ask.
Output 2 – the digital artefact
possible base for the information
ELEHE article (Submission date 31st March 2016)
University of Northampton Learning and Teaching Conference (17th May)
I have submitted a proposal for a cracker barrel session based on our digital artefact.
Monday 1st February at 2.30pm.
Location – S115
Attending – Julie, Jean, Belinda and Helen
Apologies – Kathryn
Update on Project Review meeting – We were encouraged to be bought out from teaching and marking using the bid money. Jean sent round the financial details to remind everyone last week.
Research Assistant – Julie is interviewing with Helen Scott on Wednesday so we might have someone soon. We might consider using Associate Tutors at £40 / hour if necessary – Elaine’s suggestion.
Output 1 – The questionnaire is now complete at 25. A pool of relevance – 73 academics would have received it, several taken out as not being active in teaching. 35% response rate (not too bad). We will consider it closed from Monday. Julie has begun to analyse it. Progress related to research assistant. Julie will continue to look at it and work with research assistant when appointed. (related to later discussion – look out for some students willing to be filmed explaining why their thoughts about digital assignment guidance)
Output 2 – Discussion of case studies, ethical issues around asking for student views of these, using student examples of case study assignments. Mark as read on email, contact me if you don’t want me to use it. Jean to draft an email. Date to complete case studies discussed and set as by end of February.
Other: Digital toolkit discussed – We’ll be using the three questions (see 30/10/15 meeting) format with three digital items under each. Each heading will open to provide some text explanation.Jean to find a tool to make the structure.
IDEA!! We could use QR codes and origami to make a paper version too.
Conferences
Ming suggested: ALT Annual Conference 2016: Connect, Collaborate, Create. 6 – 8 September 2016, University of Warwick
I also found the TEAN Let’s talk about encouraging the effective use of technology in the classroom 16th March 2016 in Manchester. I can’t go as I am teaching but other group members could?
University of Northampton – The Learning and Teaching Conference 2016 will take place on the 17th May 2016. ‘Dare to be Different’ (presentation and / or cracker barrel)
Next meeting
29th February 2016
3.30 – 4.30-pm
Meeting – January 11th 2016 (9am)
Location – S120
Attending – Jean, Kathryn, Helen, Belinda
Apologies – Julie
Project review meeting with Ming Nie:
The objective of the meeting is to review the project progress against the project plan and deliverables. Each meeting should be attended by at least one key member of the project. It is important to attend this meeting as the project lead. Other members of the team are welcomed to the meeting too.
Research Assistant
Lina can no longer take up this role so Helen Scott is pursuing a replacement at the moment. Helen C suggested we canvas the university’s PhD students by talking to Richard, David or Cristina and go along to the office, maybe a leaflet to explain the several projects. Helen C to look for a group email address that we could use.
Output 1
The project was discussed at the School Forum and encouragement
19 replies so far, 10 gave their names. 9 from the first version – no overlap.
We need to fill the questionnaire in.
Helen C asked discussed it as the Staff Meeting and Kathryn will encourage EY. Jean to follow up with the ECYP division. Jean will forward the email to each person to resent with their own message of encourgement.
Jean to send one more reminder asking for it back by end of January. Discussed the impact of no research assistant.
At our next meeting we can discus the data more fully.
Output 2
Case Studies
Over the next month Jean (ThingLink), Helen (blog) and Kathryn (discussion board) to write about the origins of their assignments under these headings:
Evolution of the tool
Theoretical background
Where we are now
Student voice
Examples (draw themes out)
Other
Helen Caldwell conference presentation: presentation ‘Mobile technologies technologies as a pedagogical catalyst.
Peter Goy – change of marking to save time, presentations, (pursue this if it doesn’t come up by questionnaire)
Next Meeting
Tuesday 2nd February 2pm
Attended:
Jean, Julie, Helen, Kathryn, Belinda
Output 1
Research Assistant – interviews are likely to be next Friday for the post, Helen and Julie, might be combined with hours for other projects.
Questionnaire
Title – ‘exploring innovative digital approaches to assessment in the School of Education’
Tone of the introduction – needs to emphasise that it is not an audit but an invitation to share practice and experience.
Part 1 – keep part 1 but with the addition of open boxes to add detail where appropriate, no need for module and assignment number,
What is the nature of the assignment? – choose from a drop down list.
We discussed the separateness of the two sections and the order, deciding to keep the order the same.
In Part 1 we are looking for guidance over and above the standard typed assignment brief using a media tool – video, audio, with a drop down list and ‘other’ (Helen suggested Camtasia might be added to the list)
If not used – why not? If someone hadn’t did they want support with it – of so they would have to identify themselves.
Empty box for thoughts?
When is it appropriate to set the extra guidance? Should students have less as they go through the course? Spoken feedback on Turnitin?Student FAQs
Option of telling us module and assignment numbers.
Part 2
Qualitative data about assignments.
Any examples?
Why do you use it / why not?
Student feedback, how much choice for students, plagiarism, marking?
If you are unsure still share it
Invite them to share egs and links if they want to (bear in mind it’s a public forum)
Put egs on blog
Next steps
Formulate this into the questionnaire – Julie to draft, Belinda to put into electronic form – e serve
Still aiming to circulate Dec 1st if possible, draft circulated next week perhaps
In by 14th Dec?
Reminder at School Forum 18th Dec?
Jean to contact Ming about the change in emphasis and organisation of outputs that has emerged in these early planning meetings
Output 2 Not discussed this meeting
Output 3 Not discussed at this meeting
Other:
Could we each add some biographical details to the page called ‘the team’?
Should Jean, Kathryn and Helen each have a page on which to add thoughts so that we don’t forget things in this time whilst we haven’t got a template for our case studies?
A qualitative survey of the range of approaches (not an audit)
Next meeting – Monday 11th January 9am
Meeting 1 – present:Jean, Julie, Belinda
Output 1 survey of existing provision:
Julie has begun to investigate recruiting a research assistant via Unitemps, designing job description.
We identified a definition to express what a ‘digital’ assignment is to use at the beginning of the questionnaire:
“Digital media assignments provide students an opportunity to demonstrate their learning of course content through the creation of multimedia learning objects using such formats as video, audio, still images and text. Assignments include the creation
of short video documentaries, digital stories, audio and enhanced podcasts, digital essays, and other types of multimedia presentations.” (Engage, 2012, p3)
Engage. (2012). Teaching with Digital Media Assignments.
Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin.
We identified some questions and talked through how staff might answer them eg via ticking on a list, writing in boxes etc.
Later, Belinda constructed the electronic survey to pilot with the ECYP division next week – report back 5th November 2015.
Output 2 guide / digital toolkit:
This was discussed at length and a possible approach being suggested as a digital toolkit addressing the following three key areas:
How do we design and construct the assignment?
(assignment guidance, rubrics, teaching and learning decisions)
How do we guide and support the students?
(written and video guidance, teaching and learning)
What is the student outcome? (from case studies eg blog, electronic poster, ThingLink)
Ideas and materials from the survey, interviews and case studies would inform the writing of this digital toolkit.
Output 3 case studies: not discussed at this meeting