Technology enhanced learning – Page 7

Blackboard Collaborate cross-campus tutorials as a useful tool to enhance the Part One Pharmacy student experience at the University of Reading Malaysia

20 August 20194 October 2019 By laurenmccann Comment Closed

Dr Darius Widera, School of Chemistry, Food and Pharmacy
d.widera@reading.ac.uk

Overview

After a successful application to act as one of the early adopters of Blackboard Collaborate at the University of Reading, this technology platform was used for a series of cross-campus tutorials within the Fundamentals of Physiology (PM1AM) module between the University of Reading’s Whiteknights and Malaysia campuses. The format was well-received, and contributed to an enhanced student experience.

Context

The official inauguration of the University of Reading Malaysia (UoRM) campus in EduCity, Johor Bahru, in early 2017 and the start of the MPharm (Malaysia) programme in the academic year 2016/17 offer excellent opportunities for further internationalisation of the University of Reading and specifically within Pharmacy education.

The University of Reading Malaysia offers a double accredited (UK and Malaysia) 2+2 MPharm (Hons) degree where the students study for two years at the Malaysia campus followed by two consecutive years in Reading.

The PM1A module and its UoRM counterpart, PM1AM, cover the basics of biology and human physiology including genetics, biochemistry and cell biology. According to student feedback, these topics tend to be challenging for the students, especially in light of the fact that significant numbers of Pharmacy students do not have A-level biology to provide background knowledge.

In response to this feedback, several tutorials have been introduced to provide students with interactive opportunities to revise the content of lectures and practical sessions and to close any potential knowledge gaps.

Thus, there was a need for the development of a cross-campus solution to ensure that both MPharm cohorts (UoR and UoRM) are provided with a similar form of tutorials.

Objectives

To explore if Blackboard Collaborate can be used for cross-campus delivery of tutorials covering the content of the genetics lecture series within the PM1A/PM1AM module.
To investigate if cross-campus virtual classroom/teleconference represents an appropriate pedagogical tool for delivery of tutorials in Pharmacy and how this deliver method affects student engagement and interactivity.
To assess if these sessions could help 2+2 MPharm students to prepare for their two years of study in Reading.

Implementation

The Blackboard Collaborate platform was used to develop a series of tutorials in genetics. The online sessions were led by Dr Widera (live video capture via a webcam) at the University of Reading’s Whiteknights campus and streamed to students at the UoRM. The student group was composed of 11 Malaysian Part One MPharm students. The content of the tutorials was covered in the respective lecturees. It was expected that students would have factual knowledge of the topic, although at heterogeneous levels.

All students were equipped with PCs with headsets and webcams. Blackboard Collaborate functions including ‘raise hand’, virtual whiteboard, chat, and direct interaction with all or individual students (either via audio or video) were used. In addition, external tools (e.g. Microsoft PowerPoint presentations and the Poll Everywhere app) were used via the ‘share screen’ function of Blackboard Collaborate. For the tutorial, an introductory PowerPoint presentation was designed and a screencast deposited on YouTube as a contingency plan. Multiple choice questionnaires (MCQs) were set up on the Poll Everywhere platform, and short answer questions (SAQs) were included in an additional PowerPoint presentation. After each MCQ/SAQ, students were given time to decide on an answer (individually via Poll Everywhere), followed by an interactive discussion.

The overall length of each tutorial session was 50 minutes. Individual anonymous post-hoc feedback was collected to evaluate student opinions on the usefulness, overall style, and delivery. In addition, a technical report and an experience log was collated and submitted to the Technology Enhanced Learning team. Finally, the content, deliver and potential changes were discussed with students and peers during a visit to the UoRM.

Impact

During the tutorials no serious technical issues were encountered, although students at UoRM did experience slight lagging in their connections (with video and audio becoming slightly out of sync). Students showed high levels of interaction and successfully used most of the Blackboard Collaborate features. Importantly, other than in UoR in-class tutorials, students engaged and interacted early on. This is reflected in the feedback collected after the first session (“I like how it is interactive and fun”). The tutorial format also seemed to help students to revise the content of the lectures (“Useful to enhance my biology knowledge”, “It helps me to revise”, “It helps me to find out my difficulties with previous lectures”). Moreover, students appreciated that the session was different compared to conventional lectures (“It was different from just sitting in the classroom and listening to lecturers”, “it was another way of learning outside the classroom”). Last but not least, it was appreciated that the tutorials were run by Reading-based staff that the 2+2 students would meet during their two years in Reading (“can meet Dr Widera and learn from him”). No negative feedback was received.

Follow up

Following the feedback received, further tutorials involving other lecturers teaching on the PM1A module will be developed and implemented.

E-submission, marking and feedback – Pilar Gray-Carlos

20 August 20194 October 2019 By laurenmccann Comment Closed

OBJECTIVES

To facilitate the administrative process in submission of summative assessment
To inform module convenors and language teaching fellows of the tools supported by the University LMS Blackboard Learn
To provide the opportunity to apply the above tools, gather experience and inform decision on best approaches and best practice
To explore usability and applicability of existing marking criteria in the form of Tii (Turnitin) rubrics
To explore and facilitate a transition to use a basic set of QuickMarks across the Department whilst enabling room to create language specific amendments
To facilitate timely and transparent accessibility of results for students via the Grade Centre

CONTEXT

As part of summative assessment, students of intermediate to advanced language courses in IWLP Chinese, French, Italian, Japanese, German and Spanish submit a project (between 600 and 1000 words or characters according to language and stage) researched and written in the Target Language.

IWLP deals with a large volume of students each year so it was important to explore ways of facilitating a point of submission that would enable staff to easily follow up submission deadlines and late submissions eliminating paper based trails and multiple parties involved in the process, making it timely and easily accessible for staff to keep track of submission.

As the majority of language teaching staff works on part-time basis, it was felt that it would be of advantage to have a point of access to student´s work from different locations. This also meant adopting electronic marking and feedback as a way to facilitate marking and moderation remotely.

Three years ago it was unclear whether Tii would support the modern languages provided by the IWLP programme. Once it was established that it did support modern languages, it was felt that the use of similarity reports would both assist teachers in detecting plagiarism and be good for student learning as it would force students to revise not just content but language as well and re-write when necessary.

One of the advantages of using electronic submission, marking and feedback is that both the marking criteria and the feedback can be provided in the same space, therefore avoiding reprinting and waiting for students to collect feedback. Language projects are assessed on the following areas: content, structure, vocabulary, grammatical accuracy, range of expression, syntax and variety of grammatical structure. The aim was to upload the project marking criteria in the form of rubrics hence facilitating all the tools for marking and feeding back in one place for tutors, providing an area readily available for moderation, and granting ease of access to results and feedback for students.

There were two e-submission options to be explored: e-submission with inline grading or e-submission via Tii assignment submission, the latter supplying the facility to use rubrics and quick marks via the Turnitin Suite.

IMPLEMENTATION

Initial meetings took place three years ago with members of the TEL team which highlighted the advantages of using the electronic submission of written work. The meetings involved coordinators and module convenors of the languages that initially provided intermediate to advanced stages: English for Erasmus, French, German and Spanish. It was then agreed to pilot the use of electronic submission and to initially explore the use of “inline marking” tools for marking and providing feedback.

Further training was arranged, delivered by both the TEL team and Pilar Gray Carlos and on-going support was provided on an ad-hoc basis.

The first round of assessments took place and the feedback collected from tutors was varied. Some colleagues developed feedback systems utilising tools such as colour underlying and text boxes. As not only the content but the language is assessed, and identifying, correcting and explaining language mistakes can be a detailed process it was felt that, not only it took time to get familiar with the new system but that the result of the corrections and feedback was not easily accessible to students, making it necessary to print student´s work and go over corrections and feedback again with students in the classroom.

A period of required e-submission, but voluntary use of electronic marking and feedback followed until there was confirmation that Tii supported other modern languages. At this time modern languages such as Mandarin Chinese and Japanese had added intermediate courses to their provision. It was then decided to take the opportunity to start using Tii also as a formative tool, and in doing so, familiarising students with its use and enabling them to self-evaluate and readdress their own work. The use of similarity report was enabled for formative submission during the course and in view of the final submission of summative coursework.

Opportunities for training by the TEL team and in-house training were organised and provided by Pilar Gray Carlos and more experienced colleagues within ISLI. In this way module convenors and tutors were shown how rubrics and QuickMarks are used for marking and feed back in language teaching (see Rob Playfair case study and Jonathan Smith´s interview).
At the same time, and in parallel with work on e-submission, marking and feedback, a Grade Centre was created for the 31 modules provided in the 10 different languages. Weighted columns were created per assessment per module, teachers could directly input results and students would have direct access to marks as they were released.
Having all that data available also meant that, although limited, some reports could be printed with regards to module performance per assessment and even for languages where classes are taught in parallel groups, group performance data reports could be produced.

Since then the EMA Core Systems Team has delivered a more streamlined process which produces similar data sets on RISIS (for more detailed information see the EMA Programme short videos link below).

IMPACT

The use of e-submission has enabled a variety of approaches to formative assessment to flourish, some languages have made the most of using e-submission to collect student´s work and to feedback on line.

As per summative assessment, the adoption of QuickMarks is facilitating marking, and once the teachers get accustomed to using them it becomes an efficient way to point out generic language errors.

The use of the Grade Centre was a success, as it cut down on administration, freeing time on the side of administrators and teachers and it provides helpful information as to the performance of certain cohorts and groups. The only drawback was the missing step between Grade Centre and RISIS. At that point in time the only way to update records in RISIS was by downloading all marks in the form of a spreadsheet and manually inputting them in RISIS. The EMA Programme Core Systems Workstream are working to improve the integration between Blackboard and RISIS.

REFLECTIONS

The feedback obtained from the teachers indicates that there is a healthy satisfaction surrounding e-submission, it is also positive with regards to marking content but it is divided about how to approach correction and feedback on language items as they can be as particular as the individual but also as the language itself. In this sense written adjustments and examples need to be inserted in the text, an option that seems to be faster in paper rather than electronically but in the very specific context of inserting grammatical symbols in a text in language teaching there might be some additional thinking. The EMA Team are looking at requirements surrounding scientific, mathematical and grammatical type notations within the University and possible ways
forward.

The general consensus is that at present out of the two options Tii is a better option for language projects than inline marking. In order to enable that transition we need to look into the set of rubrics we are using and adopt sets of QuickMarks applicable to all languages, with perhaps addition of specific sets for non-Latin language scripts.

FOLLOW UP

There will be a small working group set up to revise QuickMarks across all languages. This working group will also look into the rubrics and how can we best customise them for our assessment purposes and in line with CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for languages)

Reading University Observatory: A web-based resource for 21st century teaching and learning

20 August 20194 October 2019 By laurenmccann Comment Closed

Dr Andrew Gabey,

School of Mathematical, Physical and Computation Sciences

a.m.gabey@reading.ac.uk

Year of activity: 2016/17

Overview

The University’s Atmospheric Observatory continuously collects high-quality environmental data, which is used heavily in teaching courses – particularly in Meteorology. A new web-based system, due to go into service for the Autumn semester, has been developed under this project so that the data is (i) more easily accessed by students, and (ii) pulled automatically into other software applications, such as interactive websites, for either teaching or outreach. Alongside these impacts, the system represents a more manageable way to disseminate data, and is a helpful case study for developing digital offerings using Cloud technologies supported by University IT Services.

Objectives

We aimed to build a modern environmental data service based on data from the University Atmospheric Observatory that:

Provides an improved user experience for students in the various classes using this data.
Can be accessed by anybody with permission, on or off-campus.
Supports development of data-driven applications, including interactive websites, that help explain the environment and climate.

Context

Meteorology departments generally teach with data from their own atmospheric observatories, often using clunky methods. Our school website provides an on-campus-only service for students to access data needed for Meteorology, Sustainability, Biology and Geography classes, but the software for this has grown organically and has reached a point where the user experience is somewhat overwhelming. This technologies used are also unsuitable for modern applications such as interactive data-driven websites that could showcase the university’s facilities.

Implementation

Stakeholder input and co-ordination: Meetings were held with the departmental data manager, laboratory technicians, other research staff interested in sharing data efficiently, and the HoD responsible for funding the on-going computing cost for operating the service. As they were engaged during the proposal writing, these discussions were broadly positive and yielded useful considerations such as the need for legal wording on the website.

Design and implementation of software: The proposal document was used to inform technical requirements passed to the programmers. These focussed on the different journeys taken by service users and administrators, and feedback between the programmers and I helped smooth interpretation.

Standing up the service: University IT Services were happy to explore ways of helping people to deliver services using cloud-based approaches, and even covered the first few months of running costs while we determined how things should work in terms of finance and support.

Documentation and support: The completed code is stored on the GitHub website, along with installation and administration instructions for system maintenance and, hopefully, the addition of more data holdings and users as time goes on.

Impact

Expected outcomes

To ensure successful outcomes, we established technical requirements based on the planned benefits to teaching and learning: Improved user experience through a better user interface; accessibility from anywhere; allowing the data manager to tailor data for classes/individuals, and employing more modern web technologies.

Based on these technical criteria, these have all been solidly realised, and the system is being stood up to be used by Meteorology students as the new academic year begins (subject to ITS support). Initial user feedback has been positive, with test users able to extract data without needing much help. When help was required it was mostly caused by bugs, which have been resolved (see follow-up for more feedback).

Unexpected outcomes

IT Services: We employed Microsoft Cloud technologies to power the service, and this in turn has allowed IT Services to determine how they can support groups within the university keen to innovate in this way.

Technological development within the department: This software has formed the basis of a similar tool to share research data elsewhere in the department, and can in theory be applied to many such datasets.

Reflections

As this was fundamentally a software project, it was essential to have well-developed requirements and criteria for success. These were worked through in detail at the start, and left enough room at the end that small extra tasks could be completed to refine the finished product.

The hardest part was spending the money: Although the University Careers centre were very helpful we were unable to secure any suitable interns, having advertised it as a summer project. An email to the departmental PhD students yielded a pair with the perfect background, and the work was completed within the increasingly tight deadline, and to budget, paid via ad-hoc work forms. Appealing to PhD students first rather than holding out for a summer intern would have been the wiser course.

A more impactful result would have been achieved if we had built some demonstrations of how the new system could be applied. For example, web-based data visualisation would show how accessible the data is; and negotiating with the University to make some of the archive available to the public would have been helpful for outreach. Public datasets are supported in the software, so a decision to make data available is easy to implement.

Follow up

Initial feedback was positive from teaching support staff, and constructive criticism was taken on board. For example, a test user was able to choose invalid dates like 31 April, which resulted in errors. Concerns were also raised about it being hard to go back and change options when a mistake was made. Refinements were made (reflected in images below) to address these.

Links

Atmospheric Observatory

sample webpage from the online database

Service homepage showing information on its use and how to get access to data.

sample webpage from the online database

Some of the options presented to the student user for data download. They are only presented with relevant information, and interface elements such as interactive date pickers are employed to make the experience more intuitive.

sample webpage from the online database

One of the administration screens allowing specific parts of the University’s large data archive to be assigned to a student, rather than presenting all possible options to them.

Virtual teaching collections in Archaeology and Classics: turning artefacts into 3D models

20 August 20194 October 2019 By laurenmccann Comment Closed

Dr Robert Hosfield, School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science

r.hosfield@reading.ac.uk

Year of activity: 2015/16

Sample image

Lykethos

Overview

The project tested different methods for producing and disseminating 3D models of existing artefacts in the teaching collections of Classics and Archaeology. 3D scanning was labour intensive and struggled to accurately represent some of the raw materials. By contrast photogrammetry was more cost and time effective and produced better quality results (see attached figure). Sketchfab was an effective, user-friendly platform for disseminating the models (https://sketchfab.com/uremuseum), and student feedback was positive.

Objectives

Produce and evaluate 3D laser scans of 10 lithic artefacts and 5 ceramic artefacts from the teaching collections of Classics and Archaeology, with analysis of 3D model resolution, cost, and time requirements, and dissemination options;
Document student evaluations of the new resources.

Context

Archaeology and Classics have wide ranging teaching collections of objects, both genuine and replica, from the human past (e.g. Greek and Roman ceramics). While students have access to this material in practical classes and seminars, out-of-class access is more difficult, due to (i) the intensive use of the teaching spaces holding the collections, and (ii) the fragility of selected specimens. The project explored methods that could enable students to engage with this material evidence through digital models.

Implementation

The project was primarily undertaken by four Reading students, both postgraduate and undergraduate: Rosie-May Howard (Bsc Archaeology, Part 2), Matthew Abel (BA Museum Studies & Archaeology, Part 1), Daniel O’Brien (BA Ancient History & Archaeology, Part 3), and James Lloyd (Classics, PGR). Supervision and support was provided by Prof. Amy Smith (Classics), Dr Rob Hosfield (Archaeology) and Dr Stuart Black (Archaeology). The four students undertook the following tasks:

(i) Testing the URE Museum’s NextengineTM HD 3D scanner and associated processing software ScanStudioTM to produce 3D laser scan models of selected artefacts (ceramics from the Ure Museum and stone tools from the Archaeology teaching collections).

(ii) Testing 3D printing of the laser scan models using the URE museum’s CubeProTM 3D printer.

(iii) Testing the digital representation of the same range of artefacts through photogrammetry, using memento by Autodesk.

(iv) Trialing the use of Sketchfab as a remote site for posting, storing and accessing the 3D models.

(v) Assessing student responses to the models through a Surveymonkey questionnaire.

Impact

(i) The 3D laser scan models provided volumetric data (unlike the photogrammetry models), but struggled with the regular shapes and repeating patterns which were characteristic of many of the ceramics. The laser scanning process was also time-intensive.

(ii) The laser scanner struggled to represent some of the stone artefacts, with the resulting models characterised by poorly defined edges and ‘holes’, due to the material properties of the flint raw material.

(iii) Photogrammetry was used successfully to create 3D models of ceramics from the Ure museum collection.

(iv) Sketchfab was a flexible interface for ‘touching up’ and annotating the models, and was more user-friendly than other options (e.g. scanstudio).

The quality of the 3D printing was mixed, leading to a decision during the project to focus on digital models that could be accessed on-line.

(v) Students responded positively to the virtual models, and would like to see more in future!

Sample survey questions and responses:

Q: What (if any) other objects/material types would you like to see as 3D models?

A: It would be interesting to see 3D models of smaller, more dainty objects as these can often be difficult to look at on such a small scale.

Q: Do you have any other comments?

A: This is a great project that should keep going! P.S. A scale will be helpful for accurately describing the objects. There’s a Part 2 Archaeology module called Artefacts in Archaeology and the scans could be used as an at-home resource by students.

Reflections

The project was successful in clearly highlighting the relative strengths and weaknesses of the 3D laser scan and photogrammetry methods for creating digital models of artefacts. In terms of cost and time it was clear that photogrammetry was a more effective method, while the experiments with 3D printing emphasised on-line hosts such as Sketchfab as the most effective way of disseminating the models.

More specifically, exploring the photogrammetry option highlighted the potential of the Agisoft PhotoScan software as an effective method for Museums or HEIs wishing to capture large collections for teaching and/or archiving purposes.

Student responses emphasised the importance of providing a wide range of models if these sorts of teaching resources are to be further developed.

Follow up

Archaeology has purchased copies of the Agisoft PhotoScan software and is currently looking to develop a photogrammetry-based digital database of its teaching collections.

At the Ure Museum 3D scans are being made available via Sketchfab and more thorough use of photogrammetry is being considered; virtual models of the vases scanned for CL1GH are being used in seminars this term.

Links

https://sketchfab.com/uremuseum

Flipping Earth Science practicals and the use of digital specimens

20 August 20194 October 2019 By laurenmccann Comment Closed

Dr Hazel McGoff, School of Archaeology, Geography and Environmental Science

h.j.mcgoff@reading.ac.uk

Year of activity: 2016/17

Overview

This project established a library of digital images of our key mineral and rock specimens. Annotated explanatory labels were added to the images to create a resource that can be used to help students familiarise themselves with the specimens before laboratory practical sessions and for reinforcement and revision afterwards.

Objectives

The aim of this project was to establish a digital resource that could be used alongside practical specimen-based teaching and learning.

Context

While students can handle and see (as well as sometimes smell and taste!) specimens in practical classes, gaining skills in mineral and rock identification takes practice and time. The use of annotated digital images allows participants to gain familiarity with the specimens and their key characteristics before each practical class, thus allowing them to use their time in the laboratory more effectively. Relevant modules include GV1DE Our Dynamic Earth, GV2GRE Geological Resources as well as some Archaeology teaching.

Implementation

Three students and a photographer were key to the success of this project. George Biddulph, a Part 2 Geography student selected specimens to be photographed and we were able to have a large number of high quality digital images taken by a semi-professional photographer. Two final year students Emma Warner (Geography) and Chloe Knight (Environmental Science) used Powerpoint to add annotations and explanatory labels to the specimen images.

Impact

This activity was successful in terms of producing the images and using Powerpoint to add labels and annotations. These will be used in 2017-18 taught modules. The project has also been useful in ‘kick starting’ the use of the collections in modules such as GV2MPL Summer Microplacement and also setting up volunteer sessions one afternoon a week during term. These give students the opportunity to identify and catalogue more of the collections.

Reflections

This project will be used in teaching in 2017-18 so additional reflection will be needed later in the session. Due to time constraints the photography of the specimens was contracted to someone outside the University. Ideally this would also have been allocated to a student.

Links

The information will be made available on Blackboard later in term. Selected specimens are being featured on the Geography and Environmental Science at the University of Reading Facebook page.

Example image of rock sample

Using wikis for assessed group work in new history modules

20 August 20194 October 2019 By laurenmccann Comment Closed

Shirin Irvine – TEL Adviser, CQSD

Overview

For the academic year 2015/16, the Department of History offered a brand-new Part 1 programme as part of the History Project. This resulted in the development of three new core modules.

Dr Mara Oliva transformed common practice by using technology to carry out full electronic assessment for her module. This project included multiple aspects of digital pedagogy, using Blackboard to perform engaging assessment. This was achieved through innovative and effective use of Blackboard Groups in combination with Blackboard Wikis and Turnitin Assignments, in addition to the Grade Centre for administering students’ marks.

What is a wiki?

A wiki is a collaborative tool that allows students to work as a group on one project and write shared content in the form of a website. They can create a series of web pages that can include images, web links and videos, collectively responding to a theme.

Dr Mara Oliva – Lecturer in Modern American History (20th century)

Image of Mara Olive

Mara explains how she used the wiki tool within Blackboard as a new tool for summative assessment.

The Culture Wiki

Journeys through History 2 aims to introduce students to major historical ideas, concepts, beliefs and knowledge systems, and to show how these are exemplified in material culture, with reference to artefacts, buildings, paintings and other works of art, literature and media.

We wanted the assessment tools we chose to reflect the cultural and visual elements of the module. Therefore we decided to use a group wiki of 2,000 words (50% of the module mark), which we called the Culture Wiki, and an individual 2,000-word essay on one of the historical concepts.

The Culture Wiki allowed students to create and contribute to several web pages of course-related material. They were expected to display their research, analytical and communication skills by building a website meant for public consumption. In small groups, students created their wikis based on a theme discussed during lectures. Lecturers provided themes in the module handbook and on Blackboard.

Our aims for using this form of assessment were to teach students the importance of teamwork and how to write in a concise and accessible way in order to develop an understanding of public history, which offers many employability opportunities to history graduates.

Impact – great results!

Overall, the exercise was very successful! According to the feedback, both students and staff enjoyed working on the Culture Wiki. Students said it gave them a chance to look at history from a different angle and realise how many flexible and transferable skills they can gain through studying history.

We then decided to take this a step further and extend full electronic assessment to the individual assay, using Turnitin Assignments. This was received very enthusiastically by the students, who appreciated the immediacy and flexible, 24/7 access technology can offer.

The project, however, would have never taken off without the invaluable support of the TEL team, in particular Shirin Irvine, Lauren McCann and Maria Papaefthimiou. With their help we arranged training and guidance for the department staff on creating and assessing wikis, using Turnitin for e-assessment, and using the Grade Centre.

To support students, we provided a separate handbook with “how to build a wiki” guidelines, which was uploaded on Blackboard. I then dedicated part of the first lecture to introducing the exercise and answering the questions. Overall, students did not need much support and were very quick at learning – their questions were mainly content related.

We are very pleased with the outcome of the project, so we have decided to continue for the foreseeable future!