Game-based learning using social media

By laurenmccann Comment Closed

Dr Stanimira Milcheva, Henley Business School
stani.milcheva@henley.reading.ac.uk
Year of activity: 2015/16

Overview

We designed a simple game (called the REFinGame) which was aligned with the course material and launched it on Facebook. This approach, which could easily be applied to other discipline areas, was successfully used to enhance student learning and engagement with modules related to real estate finance.

Objectives

  • Allow students to develop transferable skills.
  • Allow students to apply course material in a real-world scenario.
  • Provide immediate and personalised feedback.
  • Improve interactions among students and between students and the lecturer.
  • Help make the module more interactive and enjoyable for students.

Context

Real Estate Finance and Debt Markets (REMF41), is a master’s module within Henley Business School. During the module students gain an awareness of the financing process for real estate from both a borrower’s and a lender’s point of view. The game was designed so that students could apply course material and learn to assess the risks associated with financing decisions.

Implementation

First, together with Professor Charles Ward, the REFinGame was designed before the beginning of the module. The design had to take into account the course material and make simplifying assumptions so that the game could be modelled to best represent reality. The idea was that students would play the game over the course of the module outside the classroom. The game is about making financing decisions. Students are split into property developers (investors) and lenders (banks). The developers make decisions on how many properties to develop depending on how much money they have and how much finding they need from the bank. Moreover, they decide on the type of the properties, the location and other characteristics. The banks decide how much funding to provide to each developer. The game is played on Facebook on a weekly basis as information is introduced on the Facebook Wall each week. Students advertise properties on the Wall, and a decision is made by the game coordinator on the transaction price of the buildings, based on the total supply by developers and the macroeconomic situation in that period. The main idea is that students learn to assess the risks associated with financing decisions as they can lose the virtual money they have available by making the wrong decisions. The game is won by the student who accumulates the greatest amount of money.

A closed Facebook group was created for the module, a logo was created for the game, and students were briefed how to play the game. The developers and lenders had to negotiate loan conditions using Facebook messages. They then advertised the properties they developed by putting pictures and information on the Wall. The purchase prices are then communicated to the developers by private message. Information about the economy and the markets us distributed as a post on the Wall. Students have to fill in a spreadsheet each week and send this to the game instructor. The game instructor then provides feedback to each student. At the end of the game, students shared their experience of the game by giving a presentation in which they presented their strategy and performance throughout the game and compared it to their peers. These presentations are assessed.

Impact

A significant relationship was found between the students who performed well in the game and their overall module mark. Less tangible outcomes are that the game can help students develop skills such as problem solving, creativity, and strategic behaviour, and also increases the interaction among students and between the students and the lecturer. In particular we found that playing a game on Facebook helped to better integrate students who might be more reticent in class discussions. The lecturer can develop a better idea of each student’s performance leading to students receiving tailored and regular feedback and being able to improve throughout the game. This is one of the main advantages that students identified, along with the playfulness of the game, and the ease with which the game is played on Facebook. The major issues students faced were the perception that course material is not directly applied in the game. This demonstrates that it is important to manage student expectations as well as have a structured approach when it comes to game design. Ultimately, our goal is to create guidelines for using self-designed simple games incorporating Facebook, and improve student learning.

Reflection

The novelty of our approach is that we did not design a video game or a digital game using special software, but instead designed a simple game to be played online using Facebook as a platform. We wanted to show how with limited resources and time an instructor can construct a game and engage students with it, as Facebook is free and widely used by students. We have observed that the main challenge in the design of the game is to ensure that it aligns with the course material and to manage student expectations. For this purpose the instructor should very clearly explain how the game can benefit the students and how they will be assessed. Also, it is crucial to communicate how the course material can be used within the game to make decisions. For this purpose, the game designer needs to make sure that the students see the direct link between the course material and the learning outcomes of the game.

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

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

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)

LINKS

EMA Project Reading Resources

http://www.reading.ac.uk/internal/ema/ema-resources.aspx

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR)

https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference- languages/?

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

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

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

  1. 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;
  2. 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

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

Example image of rock sample

Using wikis for assessed group work in new history modules

By laurenmccann Comment Closed

Shirin Irvine – TEL Adviser, CQSD

Image of Shirin Irvine

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!

Embedding Employability Through Collaborative Curriculum Design

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Embedding Employability Through Collaborative Curriculum Design

Name/School/ Email address

Amanda Millmore / School of Law / a.millmore@reading.ac.uk

Overview

This is a practical case study focusing upon the process of carrying out a collaborative partnership project with students to embed employability attributes into a trailblazing new module option for 2019/20 LW3CFS: Children, Families and the State.  This module is unique in that it is the first to embed employability attributes and skills within the module design. This project built upon previous work within the School of Law, which identified (by working with multiple stakeholders - students, staff and employers) 11 key employability attributes of a Reading Law graduate.

Not only do we now have a module with employability attributes built-in, but the student partners have gained a range of employability skills themselves by virtue of their involvement in the process. The student partners co-designed the module assessments, ran the student focus groups and presented the project at a number of national teaching and learning conferences this year. PLanT project funding was awarded and used to provide refreshments for focus groups and to enable students to travel to conferences to disseminate the project.

Objectives

I identified 3 key challenges that the project aimed to address:

  • Employability - how to equip students with the skills and attributes to succeed in employment.
  • Curriculum Design - how to embed those graduate employability attributes into a module.
  • Student Engagement and Collaboration - how to work effectively with students in partnership.

Context

In Law the professional pathways to careers are changing, with new routes opening up for vocational post-graduate and non-graduate training. These changes are raising questions for university law schools as to how much they should be focusing upon more practical and vocational skills.

My colleague Dr. Annika Newnham and I wanted to develop a new final year module, covering a discrete area of family law, closely allied to the kind of work that students may encounter in their early years of legal practice, with assessments mapped to legal employability skills. The brief was to design assessments for this new module which were mapped to legal employability skills and I looked to see how I could incorporate the student voice within the design process, deciding to engage them in the project as collaborative partners.

Implementation

Evaluation

Student views of their involvement in focus groups and as part of the core partnership group were sought throughout the project. All felt that this was a positive experience and welcomed the partnership and mapping of employability attributes.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of embedding employability into the module will be considered during the course of the running of the module. In addition to explicitly highlighting the attributes within the course materials and teaching, I intend to get the students to self-evaluate their awareness of and confidence in displaying the attributes at the start and again at the end of the module. I am also considering ways to utilise the assessed evaluative report to encourage reflection upon employability attributes. If the students will permit, I would also be interested to maintain contact with the students post-graduation to follow-up whether these skills have assisted them in their further study and careers.

Impact

Employability: The student partners have all developed employability skills from their involvement, in particular improved confidence, communication skills and leadership skills. These skills have been highlighted most through the opportunities that they have had to disseminate the project at national conferences.The wider student body has increased awareness of employability attributes.

Curriculum Design: The new module LW3CFS Children, Families and the State has student-designed assessments with employability attributes clearly mapped to them. Students involved have gained a greater understanding of the process of module design. The students acknowledged that this was a way for their opinions to be listened to, and for them to influence their own university experience, “University can be a very impersonal experience - it is always good to feel that your voice is being heard and that you can make an active impact on uni life and module development” (focus group participant). The module is oversubscribed in 2019/20 and is operating a waiting list. The high level of student interest (approximately 20% of the cohort have selected the module, which is significant given the rather niche subject area) is indicative of the support by students for the nature and timing of the assessments and an implicit endorsement of the staff-student partnership process.

Student Engagement & Collaboration: Students feel that they have been listened to, and been treated as true equitable partners in the process which embodies the University of Reading’s “Principles of Partnership” (2019). This has created greater feelings of community and power-sharing within the School of Law. The equitable nature of the power-sharing between staff and students was fundamental to the success of the project. This experience has been transformative for me as an academic, seeing how positively these students relished the challenge of collaboration, and became true partners in co-designing assessments. It has inspired me to look to other areas of my teaching practice to consider how I can partner with students to improve the student experience and student support in addition to classic teaching and learning activities.Students are interested in extending this trailblazing process to other modules, and colleagues and I are looking at expanding it to programme level.

Student Feedback: The following quotes are reflections from the student partners on the project:

"With all the discussions, I gained knowledge about the employability skills (communication, team work, problem solving, planning and organising, self-management, learning, research and analysis and the list goes on) and will take active actions to try to improve those skills in the future. I think I gained a lot of experience in involving in this project that I can put into practice into future projects or career as well."

"I am really looking forward and excited to learn about this module that I helped create. I think the School should definitely use this approach more often on other modules as a lot of the time when students are not satisfied/happy about how a module (or lecturer) we do not have much chance to voice out our opinions and make changes, so it is a good way to avoid that situation fundamentally. As students are likely to go into law practice after graduating, it is important to not only have essay or written examinations (that do not reflect real life law practice) as assessments. It’s really different to be good in examinations and to be good in practice."

Reflections

When I presented this project at the Advance HE conference in July 2019 I emphasised my 4 step plan for successful staff-student partnerships:

The partnership can relate to a discrete area of a project (in our case this was in relation to assessment design), and this fits well with Bovill’s (2017) ladder of participation. Once the boundaries of the project are clear, then it is vital to take a step back and relinquish control.

By keeping the student-staff partnership limited to a discrete area of module design (assessments) the boundaries were clear, and students could be given greater control. The key message is that equality of arms is vital, all viewpoints need to be welcomed and considered with no obvious staff-student hierarchy.

The limitations of the project were that it was focusing upon the modular level, rather than anything broader, so its impact is limited to that module, although the goodwill that it has generated amongst our students extends far beyond this single module.

A staff-student partnership needs to be approached with an equality of arms, so that all viewpoints are welcomed and considered, with no obvious hierarchy. As my student partner when presenting at the Advance HE conference said “For me personally as a student, you’re very much stuck in this kind of limbo where you’re not quite respected as an adult, but you’re not a child either...I’m an adult but not as respected as I would like to be in a professional environment. I wasn’t treated like that, I was treated as a complete equal and had the chance to run with my ideas, which was really important to me.”

Follow up

The module is due to run for the first time in 2019/20 for Final Year students in the School of Law.

My current plans for follow-up relate to the following areas:

  1. Further evaluation of the effectiveness of embedding employability attributes into a module (see evaluation section above).
  2. Consideration of better ways to highlight the employability attributes, for example by badging them (opening up possibilities for inter-disciplinary collaborations with creative colleagues and students.
  3. The success of this staff-student partnership has highlighted how this process could be scaled up to programme level within the School of Law. This is particularly in the light of reviews of the LLB programme within the context of the University of Reading’s Curriculum Framework review process and with an eye to the forthcoming changes to the professional vocational training at postgraduate level for lawyers. One of the challenges will be how we can widen and diversify the range of students in future curriculum design partnerships.

TEF

TQ1-5, SO1-3.

Links and references

ADVANCE HE 2016. Framework for embedding employability in higher education. Available from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/framework-embedding-employability-higher-education.

ADVANCE HE 2016. Framework for student engagement through partnership. Available from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/student-enagagement-through-partnership-new.pdf.

BOVILL, C. 2017. A Framework to Explore Roles Within Student-Staff Partnerships in Higher Education: Which Students Are Partners, When, and in What Ways?  International Journal for Students As Partners,  1 (1). https://doi.org/10.15173/ijsap.v1i1.3062, 1.

HEALEY, M., FLINT, A & HARRINGTON, K. 2014. Students as Partners in Learning & Teaching in Higher Education [Online]. York: Higher Education Academy. [Viewed on 1 July 2019] Available from: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/engagement-through-partnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher.

Using quickmarks and rubrics in online assessment – Catherine Foley

By laurenmccann Comment Closed

Catherine Foley is a lecturer in Primary Maths Education in the Institute of Education. She is Director of the Primary School Direct programme which trains people to be teachers whilst they are working in schools.

Image of Catherine Foley

OBJECTIVES

Catherine describes her experience of using the Feedback Studio to move from Word-based marking an assignment to full use of Grademark.

CONTEXT

Catherine Foley is a lecturer in Primary Maths Education in the Institute of Education. She is Director of the Primary School Direct programme which trains people to be teachers whilst they are working in schools. Her experience of electronic marking relates primarily to a 20 credit postgraduate module which is part of this programme, developing the reflective practice and critical thinking of the trainees. The module is assessed through one piece of written work which is assessed formatively and summatively and is taken by approximately 80 students each year.

IMPLEMENTATION

Up until the current academic year, although students would submit their work through Turnitin (for both formative and summative attempts), they would receive feedback in the form of underlined grading sheets and text-based comments which would be completed for each student and uploaded to be released to them via Grade Centre. As with other IoE programmes, all submission, grading and feedback for this assessment is now carried out electronically.

This year, we decided to use the full electronic feedback option for both assessments since the first formative experience would give students (and staff) the chance to get used to the system. We
developed our own rubric for the assessment. For the formative assessment, we decided not to use quickmarks but just to focus on becoming familiar with using the rubric. For the summative
assessment, both a rubric and quickmarks were used: the quickmark set is the same as that used for other initial teacher training programmes.

In my own marking, I found it helpful, when getting started, to open out the full rubric in a grid from the sidebar in the feedback studio. After a while, I was clear what the different statements meant and so could use the sliders more confidently.

IMPACT

  • Speed of marking. Although marking has not been any quicker so far overall, it is likely that this will speed up as the administrative problems are ironed out and we get to know the
    system. Not having to save individual files saves a lot of time which can be spent on quality feedback.
  • Ease of moderation. Because all the assessment and feedback is in the same place, it is much more straightforward and a module convenor is easily able to quality-assure the marking
    that is taking place.
  • Curriculum review opportunity. Developing our own rubric for the assessment encouraged us to review what we had been doing. It made use stop and examine our taken-for-granted practice.
  • Student ownership of feedback. We had a workshop on developing academic writing and it was interesting to see all the students with their laptops open, looking at very specific
    pieces of contextualised feedback received online for their first assignment.
  • Using rubric reports for bespoke study advice sessions. We used the function in Turnitin to generate a report on how well students had achieved as a cohort in relation to the different
    rubric themes. We sent the report to one of the study advisers who was then able to use this to pinpoint areas to focus upon in helping students work towards their next assignment.

REFLECTIONS

Many of the challenges we experienced were due to the fact that the assessment is marked by five different members of staff:

  • When we were using Word-based documents for feedback, we could shape and guide the feedback which tutors were giving more easily (for example with a writing frame). In the feedback studio, the text comment box presents markers with a blank space so it has been harder to ensure a common approach across markers. We therefore agreed a common structure for feedback in this box.
  • The marking team had differing levels of experience with electronic marking. Because the quickmark set had to be uploaded by each marker to their Blackboard account and not all markers were present on campus at the same time, this was a logistical challenge.
  • With the options for quickmarks, rubric statements and open text comments, it would be easy for markers to over-assess each piece of work. Our agreement was that, since students were getting extra feedback in terms of the first two kinds of feedback, the final text comments should be brief and simply recognise specific areas of success then pinpoint areas for
    development.
  • Limitations in functionality of the feedback studio. Some markers liked to be able to use Word to check the number of times a student has used a particular phrase or look at the
    consistency between citations and references: you can’t currently move around the document so easily (unless you download it). Some warning or confirmation messages from
    the system (for example when moving onto the next piece of work) would make it still more user-friendly. With several people involved in marking an assignment, it is easy for markers
    to accidentally change each other’s grades – it would be helpful if grades and comments could be ‘locked’ in some way. Are different levels of access possible, so that external examiners can see the feedback studio but without being able to change feedback?
  • There are still issues (mostly to do with administrative protocols) to iron out. The IoE is currently reviewing its moderation processes and determining the extent to which
    students know they have been included. Programme directors are working with their admin teams to determine exactly how
    academics will be informed when an ECF assignment has been submitted.