• Like
 Supporting an Institutional step-change in TEL Provision
 

Supporting an Institutional step-change in TEL Provision

on

  • 560 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
560
Views on SlideShare
560
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • List faculties Mention Grainne Conole List systems – BB since Visibility of TEL – ITS as forerunner of revised support – eg load balancing and virtual servers
  • FTE in cetral team Hub and spokes Partnership with other support services and faculty staff eg network of local system admins IeLS project and SPR
  • Key apporaches Phased - both in terms of satges, scale etc Evaluation - use of small scale pilots, evaluation before next step cf big bang Holistic - view of project and service, focus on both meeting the aims of the project but longer term developing the service. Tensions, issues and benefits. On the 13th October 2009 UPARC gave its endorsement to the Integrated e-Learning Systems (IeLS) project. The IeLS project was the culmination of two years work on the concept of integrated e-learning systems, specifically focussing on improving student access to learning resources and more efficient management of coursework (e.g. Sustainable e-Assessment Stage 0 Business Case 2008, e-Submission and e-Assessment of Coursework User Needs Analysis 2008, Statement of Requirements for an Online Submission and Management of Coursework System 2009, Electronic Study Packs stage 0 business case 2009). Build on existing significant investment in hardware, technical provision, support systems and user knowledge. Standardise the baseline provision of tools to support teaching, learning and research for students and staff across the University at a higher level. Improve the student experience via simplified processes, and the delivery of enhanced, timely and personalised feedback. Up to 7.4 FTE support staff and 4 FTE academic staff time saving via streamlining of administrative processes to support e-submission (although it has been acknowledged that these benefits may be difficult to realise). Improved and more effective management of documents used to support education through the use of a repository with versioning, tracking and the ability to deploy materials in multiple locations. Some reduction of departmental needs to develop own systems. At least 3 departments have already invested between 6k-100k on bespoke systems. Further local developments with associated costs will be incurred if a University Repository to support education is not provided. Improved National Student Survey (NSS) feedback about Library resource provision via the provision of eReserves, allowing students enhanced access to key materials at any time and from any location. These are the theme that emerged - intially the focus was very much on systems deployment relying on academic staff to decide how t to use the new functionality Approaches – talk about the difficulties of working with a live environment – timing of contracts and work on production. Importance of first impressions - not a greenfield site. Not going to be wedded to technologies that might not prove fit for purpose – and small scale approach. Tension between academic champions and TEL team – re deployment. UPARC gave its endorsement to the Integrated e-Learning Services (Blackboard) project on 13 th  October 2009. The project seeks to extend our current Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) provision significantly beyond the basic "Learning System" to the full software suite with customised Assignment Handler (for electronic submission of assignments) as shown in the Figure. Successful implementation of this project is based on the proviso that the University will standardise on the use of Blackboard as its VLE. Features of the new acquisition Content System Digital repository – one place for storing teaching and learning materials. Institutional repository Version Control – automatically archive, track and access previous versions of files – useful for different units and for administrative documents. Meta data description of documents can be used for searching and retrieval. Multilevel access and permissions – makes it easy to make materials for students from one course available for students from other courses if required. Easier access for staff to files from outside the University Student access to personal files – subject to security constraints Drag and drop content in and out (overcomes the current clunky upload method) Basic e-portfolio Sophisticated Work Flow features – gives opportunities for easier admin procedures. Community System Allows definition of 'Organisations' other than 'Courses' based on roles; e.g. personal tutors, student reps, induction week students, research groups. Allows devolution of control, branding and feature sets. Assignment Handler More versatile alternative to the current Blackboard way of handling on-line submission. Allows anonymous submission Receipts for students Facilities for multiple types of feedback Work flow facilities Potential for integration into e-portfolio Specific Objectives for this project Deliver Electronic Study Packs or e-reserves – set up the process and deliver material for pilots. Encourage adoption of the Assignment Handler to gain efficiencies in the on-line submission and management of coursework. Set up the new Systems for use across the University. Identify champions to explore how pedagogical practice can be supported by the new features. In parallel raise awareness of the possibilities of the new features for the initiation of new projects. Expected benefits from this investment include: Improved NSS results for "feedback" and "library provision" by the use of the Assignment Handler and use of the Content System to deliver digitised resources. A higher level of online tools to support teaching and learning are standardised at a higher level and related administration across the university. Cost savings, cost avoidance and efficiency gains by streamlining processes to support electronic document handling, withdrawal and non-proliferation of duplicate systems, as an outcome of the enhanced content management capabilities, and through the standardisation of support processes (linked with the support process review.
  • Project driving service improvements Some of our key successes were invisible to staff and students e.g. in the summer of 2011 the central teams in IS and ESU migrated the Blackboard course materials for over 2,500 courses into the Content System and set up all Blackboard courses to use the Content System without most staff noticing, - building on what we had learned during the WEBCT migration. Our efforts saved significant staff time. As part of the process of moving materials we also implemented some key fixes to resolve issues with specific types of files before they were encountered by staff or students – again with an emphasis on improving student and staff experience of the VLE and saving staff time.
  • eReserves will save space in several branch libraries by reducing the size of their Short Loan collections. Utilising Library staff knowledge of copyright issues will ensure that the University does not inadvertently infringe the Copyright Licensing Agency's stringent guidelines while providing a service to support academic staff who wish to provide an enriched learning experience for their students. Institution-wide provision of a basic e-portfolio (helps address para. 46 of the Institutional Audit Report on PDP) Partnership with Lib – TEL team provided project management support, advice on workflows, integrating with BB (tab, roles), advice on display within courses, stats etc. Ensure compliance Unintended impact eg digital book search, greater emphaisis on ebook provision How – to develop this required both the Learn (course) environment, the content system and community system ( storage and access) plus a local development - request form, tracking and reporting options.
  • Phased deployment
  • Save capital costs of £14,000 for the annual WebCT licence fee, 0.5 FTE support staff costs and requirement to support local hardware. Key findings: Partnership approach Working with the cultural and structure of the school or department. Use of faculty staff – eg HOS to spearhead. Training in faculty labs Faculty admin staff. Purposefully did not take the approach used so successfully elsewhere – wipe and rebuild. Engineering – major steps since e.g. mandated use of BB for all courses, exam papers, faculty champion etc plus Joe’s eg.
  • Throughout the presentation we will see both what was achieved as part of the project and what has happened or is planned since the projecy end in september 2012
  • OU students video
  • The IeLS project was the culmination of two years work on the concept of integrated e-learning systems, specifically focussing on improving student access to learning resources and more efficient management of coursework (e.g. Sustainable e-Assessment Stage 0 Business Case 2008, e-Submission and e-Assessment of Coursework User Needs Analysis 2008, Statement of Requirements for an Online Submission and Management of Coursework System 2009, Electronic Study Packs stage 0 business case 2009).
  • Adding a submission point with supporting information to 150 Blackboard courses takes between 7.30 - 8.45 hours. Using the new process, script and additional functionality of the Content System this now takes 15 minutes. In this example the supporting information was changed at least three times to make it clearer for students and hence reduce administrative support time troubleshooting problems. In the Content system this is a simple upload ( 2 minutes for all submission points), the old way would take 1.5 hours of staff time per change.
  • Get some stats for this year - eg the Faculty of Arts work and reference the earlier slide.
  • Project driving service improvements eg The replacement service – an exact copy of Blackboard – was first developed to reduce the impact of downtime required to install the new IeLS functionality on to Blackboard in April 2010. Total service withdrawal while students were revising was clearly unacceptable. The replacement service is now a standard part of any upgrade process and in 2010/11 reduced service unavailability associated with the summer upgrade from 5 days to 30 minutes. Some of our key successes were invisible to staff and students e.g. in the summer of 2011 the central teams in IS and ESU migrated the Blackboard course materials for over 2,500 courses into the Content System and set up all Blackboard courses to use the Content System without most staff noticing, saving significant staff time. As part of the process of moving materials we also implemented some key fixes to resolve issues with specific types of files before they were encountered by staff or students.
  • Not project achievements due to issues with causality. Also listing outcomes not originally identified as being part of the project but retrospectively agreed to offer significant improvements to service and user experience TEL strategy not at bottom because it is unimportant - agreed summer 2012 -
  • Last point because of following UBU slide. Also DLM, Plus inline marking, rubrics etc. Relying more heavily on software suppliers to deliver what we need in age of tightening budgets.
  • Throughout the presentation we will see both what was achieved as part of the project and what has happened or is planned since the projecy end in september 2012
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/safari_vacation/7567847700/sizes/m/in/photostream/ Support for key practices Students as change drivers
  • Should also mention changes in the team - pathfinrs into the centre Team lead Academic Director post now withing the remit of the director of UG studies Embedding champions (Telan) in core educational decision making structures - all embedding and integrationg cf the strategy separation from Education. Visibilty. Academic has now come back to arrange discipline specific spaces - communication - generate sense of community, activity amongst students and staff.
  • We get these types of requests - this is about improving the student learning experience and developing essential skills around actively managing their own learning, reflecting on their learning. Need to check the status of this activity. From senior teaching academic -
  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/gogap/253649646/sizes/m/in/photostream/ Grainne Conole - conference in 2012 VLE (virtual learning environment, a centrally available tool to administer and support technology enhanced learning) as a Trojan horse. Effectively, this is a metaphor for the way VLE adoption in a faculty can be used as a way for teaching staff to become engaged with technology enhanced learning (TEL) and drive change (i.e. TEL is introduced in a subverted way). Conole used the term "nursery slope for practice" to describe how staff can be gently introduced into the TEL teaching and learning concepts through use of VLE tools to "explore, develop and give students access to material. However TEL can also make staff rethink what they are trying to achieve, learning objectives even reflect on their attitudes to teaching.
  • Support at all levels – eg Registrar, PVC Ed, Deans Academic Director – well known outcome that change requires support at all levels. Buy in often determined by sense of ownership – and the difficulty of deploying central systems to meet local demands or replace local systems. Bristol as a collegiate environment which works on consensus – ref Grainne again. Support can be established by meeting a predefined need or supporting an emerging practice – eg Faculty of Arts Key area of support – students as change drivers – with the need to balance tensions between staff, students and strategy. Awareness that change does not “just happen” thinking moved on from technologically deterministic – deploy and they will use. Change officer in TEL strat. Complex systems - difficulty of predicting outcomes and identifying cause and effect in complex systems cf the needs of business cases. Business case objectives – and tension with agile approaches to PM, flexibility,an celebrating unintended outcomes. Importance of being able to reference unintended outcomes Tension of sometimes blurred boundary between service and project - for good and ill. Service “in wild”, project that does not continue (and the risk of alienating a few project participants. Phasing – importance of communication, risk of lost momentum. Issues of change management, finding the right language to communicate with key groups and individuals. Working across mutliple institutional cultures - as one time anthropologist… Driving service outcomes Opportunities for laterai thinking but - and risks of hiding your success. As tel becomes more embeded and extensive
  • Hide this slide