Minutes of the meeting of the E-learning Advisory Group held on Thursday 10 December 2009 in the Library Meeting Room

1.         Present: Morag Bell (Chair), John Dickens, Robert Bowyer, Paul Byrne, Adam Crawford, Tony Croft, Martin Harrison, Charles Shields, Ruth Jenkins, Phil Richards Sharon Pepper (minutes)

Apologies - Jan Tennant

2.         Minutes

The group were happy with the minutes of the last meeting.

 

3.         Matters arising

 

Morag stated that the concept of the on-line distance learning should be shaped by academic staff and aimed towards a clear market demand.  It was agreed that all bids received to date should be discussed and those bids that the group were happy to back would be put forward to the Chair of Ops to be signed off. 

 

The wider area of support for off-campus students needs to be looked into and followed up in a future meeting.

 

Charles confirmed that the engCETL briefing paper had been distributed.  Morag felt that feedback was required.

 

ACTION: Tony and Adam to report back at the next meeting.

 

Phil confirmed that the electronic module questionnaire pilot was proceeding as planned.

 

4.         Strategic issues

 

4.1 Distance Learning Update

 

Morag confirmed that there was £250,000 available for developments and the timetable for spending the money was July 2010.

 

It was agreed that when considering each bid it should be ascertained that a specific criteria was satisfied, ensuring that there was a valid academic niche in the market; a real clarity of vision and achievability was present and that broader lessons could come out of a particular project which could be a benefit to other areas.

 

Bids received to date were highlighted as being from the Electrical, Materials and MEC departments, and three bids also received from the Business School.  WEDC still to place their bid.  The group voiced some concern that not all departments were aware of the money set aside for such developments and that another circulation would be appropriate to avoid missing potential bids. 

 

ACTION: John and Paul to make relevant departments aware.

 

·        Application for funding for the Postgraduate Certificate in Mathematics Support and Dyslexia/Dyscalculia in FE/HE

 

Tony summarised the course as well-defined and structured and has run for one session with 7 students at the moment, with an anticipation of 15 students per year in the future.  The materials had already been produced and a Certificate is gained over one year. 

 

Tony stated that the £30k estimated was for academic staff time and that e-learning staff time and development time would be on top of this amount. The group agreed that the course did fit the criteria; however Morag said there was a need to reflect on what kind of staff resource the group were willing to fund. Further detail was requested on breakdown of funding, and any additional resource requested for other than academic staff time.

 

ACTION: Carol to liaise with Adam and Charles in order to itemise academic input and report back to the Chair.

 

·        Strategic New Distance Learning Modules for Materials MSc Programmes

 

Martin explained that the funds would be put to use in renewing the interactive elements and to refresh and modify materials to reflect the developing market and therefore offer the top end of range facility.  The department have strong links with Unilever and are very keen to take this further by developing modules which are already in use.  The programme was seen to be reasonably costed and it was suggested that perhaps an industry expert or teacher could be enlisted to act as a consultant.

 

ACTION: It was proposed that a meeting with Martin, Barry (Howarth), Charles and Adam be arranged to clarify issues of where exactly the money would be going and to report back to the Chair.

 

·        Medical Management - Business School

 

Paul confirmed that this postgraduate programme was a small blended-learning programme at present, but with scope for some growth in the future.  The aim is to add to the academic support which is already in place.  The bid is specifically for technical support to produce materials required.

 

It was agreed by the group that all the specific criteria requirements were addressed, but an intermediate breakdown of spending was required.

 

ACTION: Business School to discuss proposal with Adam and Charles.

 

·        The Development of a Blended Learning Enterprise Module – Business School

 

It was agreed that this programme cannot be realistically achieved by July.  The programme is aimed at campus only students, but can also be offered to every student in the University, therefore perhaps comes under the ‘distant learning’ header.

 

Morag suggested that this programme may be funded in the future and therefore should be retained for possible further discussion.

 

·        Foundations of Management Learning and Leadership: Induction – Business School

 

The group questioned the amount of funds requested to develop this, and whether it was strictly distance learning.

 

ACTION: The Business School is to meet with Charles and Adam to discuss further.

 

·        Electronic Engineering

 

The group agreed that this concept fit all the criteria and was well used.  It was noted that funding this bid would not preclude a further bid from this area, for further funds to take such work yet further.

 

ACTION: John to relay this back to the department and advise that they can re-bid for more money if required.

 

4.2 E-assessment Review

 

Charles stated that there was a need to look at reviewing the assessment strategy, tools and procedures and how it maps onto examination codes of practice.  It was suggested that a Working Group be put together.  A wide variety of tools are used to deliver e-assessment such as perception; OMR service; on-line submission within Learn including the submission of media files, videos and audio files; TurnItIn, Turning Point used for diagnostic assessment in lectures; Wikis in Learn and  ‘Hot Potatoes’ an external tool.  It was mentioned that most of these tools fall outside the boundaries and there is a need to initiate, debate and agree a framework.

 

Anonymous marking is also to be reviewed.

 

Morag asked for an audit to be carried out of what is used across campus and an evaluation of that use which is then to be reported back to the group. 

 

ACTION: The initial audit and evaluation of current practice should be carried out in the New Year by Adam, Caroline, Rich, Faz and Brian via a roundtable discussion.

 

4.3 Web 2.0 Policy

 

The draft policy on external use was referred to, which was derived from the HE tool kit for HE policy makers, incorporating comments.  It was agreed that the policy needs to be put in place as soon as possible to provide clear guidance for users, outlining Intellectual Property and Acceptable Use procedures.

 

The group agreed that Web 2.0 should be used informally only and not for summative assessments or course materials.

 

It was highlighted that a recent poll was carried out in conjunction with the Student Union on student attitudes towards the use of the Web 2.0 services, to which 100 responses were received showing that 81% of the polled users stated Facebook was a favourite external service; 8% said that Web 2.0 external services were used in support of academic work, and 32% used in support of academic work as well as for social purposes.

 

ACTION: Phil and Charles to work closely on the draft policy and seek comment from team management and academic departments, thereby gaining input from all users.

 

4.4 Open Educational Resources

 

Adam said that some OER projects end in April and he could possibly put something together on the experiences gained on main issues and academic understanding of IPR.  Morag suggested that once the projects had reported back this could be used as a stimulus for discussion at ELAG.

 

5.         Issues to Report

 

·        Student e-learning projects

 

Adam stated that students were recruited by their own department at the end of term for a period of 10 weeks on a Clerical Grade 3 salary and that this had worked very well in allowing students to develop teaching resources with academic staff throughout the summer.   The programme had achieved reasonably good results.  Perhaps these results could be improved by recruiting earlier in future.

 

Morag encouraged more of the student e-learning projects as work experience / placements or graduate internships and is waiting for HR guidance.

 

·        Lecture capture pilot project

 

Charles confirmed that the Echo 360 pilot was installed at the end of September which is working very well, with another appliance awaiting installation.  20 lectures have been recorded to date, including 1 public lecture and these are automatically published to Learn.  The pilot installation of Echo 360 has only one camera view, but future installations could have a facility of differing views.  The informal feedback from the students was positive and Imago has shown an interest in having an install at Burleigh Court to facilitate conference proceedings.

 

Morag agreed that this was a good way of testing presentation skills, but questioned the longevity and shelf life of the recorded lectures as these can change from time to time.

 

6.         Integration of / communication about e-learning systems

 

Adam presented a paper on E-Learning system inter-operability, and standards to underpin this. Phil, while not opposing the wider scheme, pointed out that in practice bespoke interfaces between systems tend to deliver this, and that the best bet for rapid integration of engCETL-developed systems was to action the agreed and funded transfer between engCETL and the E-Learning Systems Team in IT Services. It was also noted that new ‘permissions groups’ in the new Active Directory service, plus the Identity Management project now well underway in IT Services, would assist here, using LUSI data owned by academic departments and Registry as the authoritative source of all relevant information.

 

ACTION: Rich Goodman, Adam et al. to initiate agreed transfer ASAP and report back.

 

7.         Membership Group

 

It was agreed to increase the size of the group, perhaps to include a student representative, Chris Peel and an experienced academic. This change would require a larger venue.

 

ACTION: Morag to ask Keith Pond and Chris Peel to join the group.

 

8.         Any Other Business

 

None

 

9.         To agree schedule of meetings in 2010

 

Date of future meetings (all 2010, starting 14:30, larger venue to be advised):

25 January, 26 April, 13 July

 

Meeting ended 5.00pm