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)
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.
Attending: Julie Jones, Claire Paterson, Jean Edwards, Belinda Green
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.
Sharing data at the T and L Conference – 17th May – cracker barrel session in the afternoon – work in progress.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Where we are now
Examples (draw themes out)
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)
Research Assistant – interviews are likely to be next Friday for the post, Helen and Julie, might be combined with hours for other projects.
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.
Qualitative data about assignments.
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
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
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)
A link to a draft questionnaire was sent out to the tutors in the ECYP division as a trial. From this we learned that:
We need to give even more definition of what digital guidance is otherwise this can be misunderstood. It is more than that the written assignment guidance is present on NILE. Perhaps we need an additional question to explore this ‘what do you think digital guidance is?’ We also discussed the use of mobile devices vs PCs and laptops to make and access guidance.
We discussed the difficult issue of confidentiality and ethics – in its present form tutors would be identifiable because they would name their module and assignment. We are keen for this research not to be mistaken for an audit – its purpose is to find out more in order to help everyone. We discussed not asking for module or assignment details or making identifying the module and assignment optional. This makes highlighting assignments we can learn from problematic.
After extensive discussion we decided that if we want to show what is possible perhaps we should use a list of what we are looking for and respondents to tick and add detail to this. We should ask about:
challenges in doing this,
why you chose the form of assessment,
if it was tried and it didn’t work,
Our aim would be to use collective expertise from the School of Education to support future development.
Next step in this output:
In the last week of November we plan to devise and trial the more qualitative questionnaire approach and then put out to staff from 1st to 14th December.
We discussed the appointment of a research assistant as in the bid paperwork.
Output 3 – case studies
We need to devise a case study template – Helen might have one we could build on. We could also look at the reent out of the box assessment publications for useful examples.
Next step – meet in December to devise a template of approach in common.
Revision of outputs and how they relate to each other in the light of initial work on the project.