ELAG: E-learning Advisory Group
3rd February 2011,
Library Training Room 1
Present: Simon Austin (SW), Adam Crawford (AC), Tony
Croft (TC), Ray Dawson (RD), Mike Earl (ME),
Martin Hamilton (MH), Jane Horner (JH), Ruth Jenkins (RJ), Ruth Kinna (RK), Keith Pond (KP), Charles Shields (CS), Alice Swinscoe (AS), Jan Tennant (JT)
By
Invitation: Richard Blanchard
(RB)
Chair: Morag Bell (MB)
Minutes: Farzana Khandia (FK)
1.
Apologies
Ray
Dawson, Caroline Pepper
2. Minutes
The
minutes of the last meeting were approved.
3. Matters
arising
MB took the DL
Evaluation paper to Ops Committee. Received positive responses from the
committee, but they requested feedback on student numbers that were supported
by the DL funded projects and the views of students themselves.
ELT discussed
the Web 2.0 Policy and OER and concluded that this would be better dealt with
by the Copyright group.
4.
E-learning Strategy
An update on ''Efficiency and Effectiveness'' project was
received from CS. The eLearning Showcase 2011 was explicitly linked to this
project and case study presentations focussed on this area. For the actual report a template for case
study interviews had been created and some interviews had already taken place.
MB commented that PQT wanted the findings and case
studies to be effectively disseminated. CS mentioned
that this will be achieved via web pages on the eLearning Blog and the deadline
for the project completion was the end of March.
5. HEFCE
Online Learning Taskforce (OLTF)
The
OLTF final report was circulated to the group.
The
group viewed the recommendations made by the taskforce timely and important in
informing Lboro’s eLearning strategy. Some of the
recommendations were already in hand by the Library whilst others were being
worked on. OER recommendation raised questions of quality. CS inputted into the
March paper so Lboro’s voice was taken into account
before the final report was published.
6.
Feedback from E-learning Showcase event
CS
updated the group on the recent eLearning Showcase event. Although feedback from
external attendees was extremely positive, CS had been disappointed on the low
number of internal staff. Some members commented that this may have been down
to the lack of publicity and timing however the general consensus was that it
was difficult to encourage staff to attend these sorts of events and more
should be done by the HoD to encourage their staff to
attend and support such events.
7.
ReVIEW Strategy and Sustainability
RB gave the
group an update on his use of ReVIEW for an MSC fulltime and Distance Learning
course. For DL courses ReVIEW proved to be very cost effective and time saving.
Very little time was taken for administration, in fact
lectures are made available almost as soon as they have been recorded whereas
in the past there would be a delay of at least a few days.
Students
were making good use of the captured lectures (approximately 5000 views to
date). The captures work on mobile devices with no extra intervention from the lecturer.
RB has not seen a reduction in attendance at lectures since the introduction of
ReVIEW.
The
group discussed the merits or otherwise of lecture capture, in particular cost
versus learning benefit. CS pointed the group to Martin Whites presentation on
lecture capture durability which was available from the eLearning
Blog.
KP
asked if there was any research on the learning benefits of lecture capture. CS
pointed out that the Coventry ELTAC Project would be doing this. AC mentioned
that studies into this had taken place in the US too.
ME added that if
lecture captures meant less students at physical lectures then this would have
an impact on timetabling.
The
group then turned to the paper distributed by CS on lecture capture strategy
and sustainability, and in particular to the recommendations made in this
paper. MH mentioned that an open source alternative (Matterhorn) to echo360 was
in the process of being tested. MB asked about timescales and costs of possibly
moving over to this.
ACTION: MH/CS to update the group on timescales / costs
of moving to Matterhorn (open source lecture capture system).
CS
added that in the meantime consideration needs to be given urgently as to who
will bear the costs of renewing the Echo 360 (and Elluminate) licences.
MB
suggested that at the end of academic year it would be useful to review the
benefits to students and lecturers and where and how lecture capture can add
value. ACTION: CS and others to take
this forward
RJ
mentioned that at a meeting with Neil Halliwell, it was suggested that lecture capture
may be a way of reducing the need for separate notetakers
for DANS students.
JH
suggested that it might be appropriate to equip postgrad rooms in Stuart Mason with
fixed installations as this is the area where we would see high usage.
ACTION: CS to obtain costs of doing this from Echo360
CS
added that Echo360 are aware of the current open source competition and their
revised costs on licensing reflected this.
8.
Institutional Web 2.0 Guidelines
CS updated the group on Web
2.0 Guidelines which had been ongoing for 1 ½ years and had been to IT
Committee and ELAG.
MH and CS have been working jointly
to create guidelines to take back to IT Committee and ELAG. They had decided to
make this available as a web resource (wordpress
blog) as this would mean it could be a dynamic list which would allow multiple
authors to add/edit it. Each Web 2.0 service would be listed individually with
some default information (name and description of service, link to the service
and a case study of use at Lboro). The ‘Things you
should know’ section would contain any important advice on the service (e.g.
upcoming takeover) and a rating on the service which would be given by ELOG.
The group were happy with
the progress and MB recommended that any further revisions should now be taken
to the Executive group and that it should link in with the copyright document.
ACTION: RJ/CS/MH to ensure appropriate references to Web
2.0 services are made in the Copyright document
9.
Any Other Business
None
10. Date
of next meeting
5
May 2011, 10.00am