Evaluation and impact planning shifted our focus: what UoR staff and students told us about Blackboard Ultra & how TEL responded 

Evaluation and impact planning shifted our focus: what UoR staff and students told us about Blackboard Ultra & how TEL responded 

By laurenmccann Comment Closed

An institution-wide evaluation of the university move to Blackboard Ultra, and what the data surfaced about course design, student belonging and inclusion. 

By: Jacqueline Fairbairn SFHEA and Emma Herrod SFHEA
Technology Enhanced Learning, Centre for Quality, Support and Development 

 Excerpt 

“Rather than simply evaluating a platform, we found ourselves exploring how everyday Blackboard practices shape the student experience.” 

Overview 

The University moved every programme onto Blackboard Ultra in 2024/25. The Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) team used the switch to Ultra as an opportunity to create a more accessible and engaging digital learning experience for students by introducing a new institutional course template, promoting more consistent course design in Blackboard, and encouraging new approaches to teaching and learning across the University. 

After the first academic year of use, we wanted to know if the anticipated benefits were realised, so we ran a mixed-methods evaluation with staff and students. 

We found it useful to think about our evaluation using the Five Levels of Impact model. Our surveys and focus groups gave us plenty of evidence around Reaction and Learning, whether staff and students found the new features helpful, and whether they felt more confident using Blackboard.  

What surprised us was how far the qualitative data pushed us up the evaluation model towards Behaviour. These were changes in confidence, independence, and sense of belonging, particularly for widening participation (WP) students already navigating other barriers. Students talked about greater confidence, independence and belonging, particularly those from groups already navigating additional barriers to learning. 

 

Objectives 

  • To understand how staff and students were experiencing Blackboard Ultra and the new institutional template, beyond simply whether people could use the system. 
  • To find out whether the move to a clearer and more consistent course structure was landing as intended, particularly for WP students. 
  • To use what we learned to shape our Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) support and guidance, and to feed evidence-informed findings into wider institutional conversations about the role of Blackboard in teaching and learning. 

Context 

The University is a medium-sized HE institution, so the move to Blackboard Ultra was a significant undertaking with over 27,000 students, around 1,300 academic staff, and colleagues teaching across the UK, Malaysia and China; from a TEL perspective we support more than 2,300 Blackboard courses. All 14 academic Schools moved to Blackboard Ultra at the same time. We supported this with over 160 staff development sessions (650+ staff trained), roadshows across Schools, and a network of Ultra Champions. 

Alongside the migration, we introduced a standard institutional course template, built around  

  • a flat structure that limited folder nesting 

These choices aimed to reduce cognitive load, make things easier to find, and support more intentional course design, rather than Blackboard functioning as a file repository.  

Implementation 

For our evaluation data, we took a mixed-methods approach because we wanted both the breadth of a survey and the depth of user discussions.    Implementation diagram

  1. Focus group: we met with ten of the university’s student Inclusion Consultants, with a scribe on hand, and asked them to walk through their own Blackboard courses live, narrating what was helpful and what wasn’t. 
  2. Written reflections: the same students followed this up with independent written reflections via Padlet, which gave us further material for thematic analysis. 
  3. Staff and student surveys: we ran an institutional survey (195 staff, 195 students), combining Likert-scale and open-response questions. We piloted the questions with student partners and our TEL practitioner forum first, which led to some useful revisions around terminology and question ordering. 
  4. Platform and accessibility data: we drew on Blackboard’s Ally statistics and worked with our digital accessibility officer and student volunteers to test a sample of courses, focusing specifically on instructor practice rather than the system’s built-in accessibility. 

We were interested in three things in particular: how helpful people found Ultra’s features; how well the new template supported navigation and wayfinding, and what people thought of our TEL support and guidance. The aim was to produce a descriptive, exploratory piece of work to surface insights about how Blackboard Ultra was being adopted. 

Impact 

For instructors; the main headline was that staff confidence in using Blackboard was consistently higher than their confidence in designing Digitally Enabled Learning within it. Under time pressure, a lot of modules were understandably starting out as content repositories rather than properly sequenced learning spaces. Feature usage backed this up:  

  • two-thirds of staff weren’t using Bulk Edit;
  • half weren’t using the course search bar,  
  • a quarter weren’t using Ultra Documents at all, often because the priority was simply getting content moved across rather than redesigning it. 

For students; the picture was more nuanced once we broke it down by widening participation group: 

Black, Asian and other minority ethnic students reported particularly strong positive perceptions of the new template, around ten percentage points above the overall baseline on questions about navigation and wayfinding. Their comments suggested Blackboard was helping them navigate academic expectations more broadly, not just locate files. 

“From a learner’s perspective, Blackboard functioned as a centralised academic hub, enhancing the coherence and self-regulation of my study practices.” 

Commuter students particularly valued features that supported quick, flexible, just-in-time engagement such as announcement pop-ups, a consistent mobile view and the course search bar. For these students, clear structure wasn’t just convenient, it helped them be more strategic with their time. We were struck by how much they wanted to see active lecturer presence in their courses; they liked feeling connected to the module as it unfolded. 

“Being able to use my phone and still have the same layout really helps me stay on track when I’m commuting.” 

 Students reporting a long-term health condition or learning difference told a different story. This group was furthest from positivity averages and showed the greatest sensitivity to inconsistency in layout, file naming and assessment visibility. They valued the system update itself, but inconsistent instructor practice within the course template was amplifying anxiety rather than easing it. 

“Overall, I believe the update of Blackboard Ultra to have been a significant factor in terms of easing my anxiety about my studies and examinations this year.” 

“Sometimes the assignment info was a bit all over the place, across different [template] sections, which made it difficult to make sure you’d read all the information needed.” 

 Taken together, the message was consistent (even where the experiences differed); clear, predictable course design changes how confident and connected students feel, and the effect is more strongly experienced by students who are already navigating additional barriers to learning. 

Outcomes: what can teaching colleagues do? 

The evaluation surfaced a set of small, low-effort changes instructors can make that have a real, positive impact on belonging and the learning journey. None of these require redesigning a module from scratch: 

  1. Use meaningful file naming. Keep titles predictable, short and distinct, so students can wayfind easily, including on mobile. 
  2. Use the file description field. A brief description helps students orientate themselves and understand what they’ll find in a resource before they open it. 
  3. Give a sense of ‘you’. Students value knowing their lecturer is present in the course; a conversational tone, or a short video or audio update, goes a long way. 
  4. Combine files in Ultra Documents. Avoid long lists of separate files; use Ultra Documents to guide students through content in sequence. 
  5. Aim for anti-scroll Ultra Documents. Keep them short – they should ‘feel’ like an A4 sheet of paper, not an endless scroll. 
  6. Uphold consistency. Stick to consistent course structures and templates so students can find information quickly, week to week and module to module. 
  7. Schedule release of content and announcements. Timed releases help guide students through the module as it unfolds, rather than leaving everything visible at once.

Reflections 

What made the evaluation project useful was resisting the urge to treat it as a checklist of requirements met. The questions that mattered most we not “do people like the updated system”, but “how do everyday practices affect user’s experience”. 

If we were doing this again, we would like to find a more systematic way of following up with the WP students whose experiences diverged most, particularly students with a health condition or learning difference, where the gap between intention and instructor practice was most distinct. 

One thing we didn’t anticipate was how far the findings would travel. We’d planned this as a local, TEL-focused evaluation piece; however, it opened a wider conversation about institutional approaches to engaging colleagues with Blackboard Ultra practices and ultimately supporting student learning. 

Follow up 

The findings have since been shared with the University’s Teaching and Learning and Infrastructure Committees, the Awarding Gaps steering group and Reading’s Commuter Student working group, among others. Colleagues presented the work externally at the Blackboard User Group and at the 2026 Durham Blackboard Conference.  

Locally, in TEL we will be looking towards: 

  • Developing metrics to monitor adherence to the Ultra template and file-naming conventions, working with School Directors of Teaching and Learning to identify courses needing support. 
  • Shifting more of our TEL support towards course design and digital pedagogy, rather than technical training alone. 
  • Continuing to work with the university groups to shape thinking about how the VLE can better support belonging and connection for students 

None of this would have carried the same weight without the evaluation planning behind it. It gave us a thorough evidence base and a student voice to bring into conversations. That’s probably the bigger lesson here; evaluation isn’t just about checking whether a project worked. Done well, it gives you the legitimacy to keep having the conversation afterwards. 

References 

CQSD Digitally Enabled Learning guide  

Reading’s Evaluation and Impact resources 

From Prompt to Dialogue: Blackboard AI Conversation Role-plays in Languages

From Prompt to Dialogue: Blackboard AI Conversation Role-plays in Languages

By laurenmccann Comment Closed

Overview

Find out how Spanish Lecturer, Oscar Garcia Garcia, used role-play activities through Blackboard’s AI Conversation tool to support Intermediate and Advanced Spanish III classes, enhancing authentic conversational practice.

Objectives

• Facilitate interaction in Spanish in real-life contexts.
• Practise transferable skills such as negotiation and problem-solving.
• Reinforce and practise the content covered in class through activities.
• Trial the AI Conversation tool in Blackboard for language learning and share findings with colleagues teaching languages in the Department of Languages and Cultures (DLC).

Context

I wanted to trial Blackboard’s AI Conversation tool in two modules to provide students with a new interactive way to practice Spanish in the context of their course content. I chose the two Intermediate Spanish modules I convene, using role-plays based on day-to-day scenarios: a visit to the GP and a negotiation with a landlord/lady to rent a room. I trialled it in Advanced Spanish III with more complex conversations with a task identifying dialectal features and a debate on social media.

Implementation

The implementation of each activity started with identifying the most appropriate sessions in which to introduce it, ensuring alignment with the module content and appropriate timing. I designed each activity carefully, providing clear student instructions and a prompt for the AI with its role, with information on its level of Spanish and background (job, regional origin, age, personality). Before introducing it to my students, I conducted dry runs to test functionality and refine prompts where necessary. In class, I presented the activity and guided students so they could access it, complete it effectively, and understand how the AI Conversation tool works.

Students then completed each task. We did two activities in class: a doctor’s appointment role-play in Intermediate Spanish, and a task identifying dialectal features in Advanced Spanish III. Two other activities – a negotiation with a landlord/lady (Intermediate, scenario shown in the image below), and a debate about social media (Advanced III) – were set for homework.

After completing the two classroom activities, we discussed them; for instance, Intermediate Spanish students had to mention why the patient at the GP was feeling unwell and why they reached their conclusion.

I then proceeded to review their contributions to provide further feedback, draw conclusions, and redesign activities where necessary to improve their effectiveness for my use with future classes. For the two independently completed activities, the process was reversed: I first reviewed the students’ participation in the role plays and subsequently discussed them in class.

Screenshot of AI Conversation activity in Blackboard.

Impact

I believe the activities were successful as students engaged effectively with the AI Conversation tool and completed the tasks. The objectives were met, particularly in relation to practicing transferable skills such as negotiation and problem-solving, as well as reinforcing and consolidating classroom content and language skills. I also shared my findings at a departmental TEL event, where it was positively reviewed by colleagues, with a further session planned ti share more widely.

An unexpected outcome was that, although no reflections were required, some students still added brief comments on the usefulness of the activity and what they had learned, which has encouraged me to use the Reflection Question feature in the future in a more effective way.

Reflections

The activities were interactive, motivational and almost game-like, requiring students to solve problems individually or in small groups, or deal with everyday situations in real-life contexts using a language they were learning.They were well received by students and they were closely integrated with the course content. A key factor that made the activity successful was that I instructed the AI to use specific language levels: B1 for Intermediate Spanish and C1 for Advanced Spanish III, aligned with the levels of the respective modules students were studying. This allowed students to put into practice the topics and language, such as grammar and vocabulary, covered in class. I also completed the activity by previewing the chat several times to ensure it worked properly and the AI behaved as expected – I would advise doing this.

The two activities assigned as independent work beyond the classroom had a low completion rate. In the future, they could be carried out in class, or there should be a stronger emphasis on ensuring they are completed. I would also like to use the Reflection Question feature more effectively and clearly, as I consider it very useful for encouraging students to reflect on the activity and its objectives.

Follow up

Since these activities were carried out individually at different points during the academic year, I was able to refine the way I created prompts, making them increasingly concise. In the future, I would welcome the inclusion of voice recognition and pronunciation features within the tool, as these would provide significant benefits for language learning and the development of oral proficiency.

Further information

CQSD TEL guidance: AI Conversations

University of Derby: Enhancing student engagement with Blackboard’s AI Conversation Tool

 

The suitability of personalised AI models for ancient language T&L

The suitability of personalised AI models for ancient language T&L

By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

 

By: Jackie Baines and Edward A. S. Ross, School of Humanities; Department of Classics, j.baines@reading.ac.uk; edward.ross@reading.ac.uk 
A robot and a human hand almost touching.
Photo by Cash Macanaya on Unsplash

Overview

This article outlines the work undertaken in the Department of Classics to test the effectiveness of GenAI model personalisation to reduce hallucinations and output refining time. These tests found that personalised model using OpenAI’s GPTs, Google’s Gems, and Blackboard Ultra’s AI Assistant made some efficiency improvements, but personalisation had no impact on reducing hallucinations.

Objectives

• To test if personalised GenAI tools can reduce hallucinations related to ancient language vocabulary and reduce the number of required inputs to achieve an expected output, compared to the equivalent freely-available GenAI model.
• To develop ethical and sustainable methods for training personalised GenAI tools.
• To collaborate with students to test the GenAI tools from a learner’s perspective.

Context

Based on previous research on the effectiveness of using GenAI tools to support ancient language T&L, we found that ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, and Claude all frequently outputted hallucinated vocabulary that was not included in the restricted vocabulary lists prescribed in our modules. We found that this would cause problems for students without a firm understanding of their vocabulary requirements, so we sought to determine whether personalised GenAI models would significantly reduce these hallucinations. Furthermore, for sustainability purposes, we hoped that personalised models with pre-prepared guiding prompts would potentially reduce the required number of inputs to achieve an intended output.

Implementation

  • We developed an exhaustive dataset of all possible Latin words and forms that a student in CL1L1 (Beginners Latin) would be expected to know at the end of the module.
  • This dataset included 21,825 datapoints and took 48 hours to tabulate.
  • We prepared personalised models using OpenAI’s GPTs and Google’s Gems interfaces, where we uploaded the datasets and created guiding prompts based on our previous work developing guiding phrases.
  • Teaching staff and students then tested the personalised models for their effectiveness at supporting ancient language learning in two different tasks: creating and marking vocabulary quizzes and generating additional homework questions.
  • The personalised model outputs were then compared to equivalent outputs from the general versions of ChatGPT and Google Gemini available at the time.
  • Teaching staff then tested these same prompts with Blackboard Ultra AI assistant, which only had access to the prepared datasets and CL1L1’s module materials.
  • Based on the results of these tests, we updated our departmental AI guidance and instructional booklets.
  • At the beginning of the 2025–2026 academic year, we informed students and staff in the Department of Classics of best practices for supporting ancient language T&L with GenAI ethically and effectively.

Impact

The original intention for this project was to try and reduce the hallucinations present in GenAI outputs related to ancient language vocabulary and thereby reducing the number of prompts required to obtain an accurate desired output. Over the course of this research, we discovered that end-user-friendly GenAI personalisation models are largely ineffective, and sometimes more problematic, when compared to the equivalent general use models. Vocabulary hallucinations were just as persistent in the personalised models as in the general-use models. The major issue, however, was that the personalised models would insist that hallucinated vocabulary was in the original dataset to begin with, while the general-use models would apologize and try to make the mistake a learning opportunity for the user. There was some reduction in the number of required inputs to obtain an accurate desired output, but the hallucination issues tended to outweigh these improvements. For more details about the effectiveness of OpenAI’s GPTs and Google’s Gems, please see Ross and Baines (2025).

Blackboard Ultra’s AI Assistant was able to provide quizzes and extra homework, acting as a tutor. However, despite having access to the vocabulary dataset and module materials, we found that the hallucinated vocabulary issues were also present. When challenged about the presence of unneeded vocabulary, the tool took a balanced approach, compared to the OpenAI and Google’s models.

Screenshot of genAI chatbox
Figure 1. Anthology, Blackboard AI Assistant 3900.121.0, 3 July 2025 version, personal communication, generated 23 July 2025. Prompt: “Write a vocabulary quiz using 2nd declension nouns.”

In the above image (Figure 1), oppidum is a hallucinated noun that is not included in the vocabulary dataset, but the word does exist otherwise. Blackboard Ultra AI Assistant responds to the input that highlights this issue by still providing grammatical details and the opportunity to learn the noun as additional vocabulary. Although this tool does produce the same kind of hallucinations as the other personalised models, it does generate outputs which are similar to a teacher in a classroom.

Reflections

We think that this research is important, despite the lack of positive results. These tests demonstrate that personalisation using general-use AI models like ChatGPT and Google Gemini will not be appropriate for supporting specific language learning tasks, especially for ancient languages. Instead, smaller, independent, bespoke AI models that are trained on restricted datasets would be more effective. However, these models and datasets do not yet exist. Through collaborative work, AI developers and ancient language teachers can create accessible, ethical models to support ancient language T&L.

References and further reading

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!

Blending face-to-face and online to deliver group seminars

By peteandrews Comment Closed

Jeremy Lelean, Staff Engagement                                                                                                                                                           j.lelean@reading.ac.uk

Context

Soil Security Programme (SSP), School of Agriculture, Planning and Development

PhD students, external institutions and organisations

Description

 The Soil Security Programme is a PhD Student research network that includes a number of
other institutions and external bodies. Students are dispersed around the country and
sometimes abroad.
 The ability for the dispersed members of the network to join seminars held at Reading by PhD
students would help facilitate increased communications and information sharing.
 Two face-to-face seminar events have been held at which members have been able to join
remotely via Collaborate.
 Members were sent a ‘guest link’ and joining instructions and were able to watch the
presentations given in the physical room.
 The initial seminar had 11 participants, 9 in the room and 3 joined remotely.
 A USB speakerphone was attached to the laptop in the room to provide the audio and a
webcam was used to show what was happening. Presentations were delivered using
‘Application Share’ in Collaborate.
 Jeremy facilitated the session to ensure the remote participants were kept informed of what
was happening in the physical space.

Impact

Using Collaborate was a success and participants found the experience was very good. There
were some minor points raised but this did not detract from usability.
 Remote participants could easily join in sessions that they wouldn’t otherwise have been able to
attend.
 Recordings of the seminars were made available to members of the network.
 SSP plan to deliver an online conference using Collaborate to help build a community of early
career researchers and PhD students in the field of soil science.

Thoughts and reflections

 Remote participants weren’t able to see where the speakers were pointing to on the slides. Ask
speakers to use the inbuilt Pen and Laser Pointer tools when PowerPoint is used in Presenter
View to highlight slides.
 It was necessary to restart application share when moving between different PowerPoint
presentations.
 Remind participants in the physical space to remember that there are remote participants.
 Participants in the physical space can’t see the chat taking place in Collaborate.
 Chat was particularly useful for communication between the facilitators and remote users
without disturbing the seminar speakers.
 Ensure that remote users can hear those speaking in the room clearly. It may be necessary for
the facilitators to repeat questions or ask people to speak more loudly.

 

Engaging students in online careers events using Blackboard Collaborate

By peteandrews Comment Closed

Daniel Kiernan & Graham Philpott, Henley Business School                                                                                              d.kiernan@henley.ac.uk   g.philpott@henley.ac.uk

Context

MBA students, Finance

Number of participants in sessions: 26

Session length: 20 minutes

Description

 Getting students to attend careers events during particular periods of term can be difficult. The
use of Collaborate was piloted to see if attendance could be increased by providing online
sessions when students typically don’t engage with face-to-face careers events.
 A short 20 minute presentation was given with PowerPoint slides and included separate online
poll questions.
 Students were encouraged to pose questions using the ‘Chat’ feature

Impact

 Student feedback was positive.
 The online event had higher attendance than would be expected for an equivalent face-to-face
session held in the same period. “We would typically really struggle to get 26 attendees to a
careers event during the summer term.”
 It was easy to organise and deliver the event.
 Not all of the students who pre-registered actually attended the webinar (15 attended, 17
didn’t). Most students stayed for the entire session.
 Dan was able to send those that weren’t able to attend a link to a recording after the session.

Thoughts and reflections

 Dan is keen to make future sessions more interactive, with more questions and responses. This
should help address attendance concerns. If you attend you get your question answered live!
 Possibly have an assistant to help moderate the chat and pose questions to the presenter.
 Think about the way in which you want to present your content and how this affects your ability
to manage and facilitate the session.
 The PowerPoint slides were displayed on Dan’s computer in Presenter View and delivered in
Collaborate using ‘Application Share’. PowerPoint presented in this way requires 2 screens and
also meant Dan wasn’t able to see the Chat while the slides were up.
 Check your camera angle and be mindful of it during the session.
 If you are recording the session, remember to exit the webinar properly, using the ‘Leave
Session’ button otherwise the recording continues.
 The recording captured the screen, audio/video and chat but didn’t capture the poll on screen
as this was viewed in a separate tool.

 Students attended the session using the ‘guest link’. This doesn’t record the email of the
students, so you’ll need to think about how students sign-up if you want to contact them (e.g.
via email) after the session.
 How should the recording of a session be made available after the session? Do you devalue the
benefit of attending the webinar if it’s made available to everyone? Should it only be sent to
attendees as an incentive to attend?
 Having a recording meant Dan was able to reflect on the content of presentation and consult
with his colleagues.

 

 

Closing the gap! Bringing together students studying at different campuses using Blackboard Collaborate

By peteandrews Comment Closed

Kate Fletcher, Sue Slade, Kevin Flint, Raj Vaiyapuri, Wee Kiat Ong, School of Chemistry, Food and Pharmacy; Pharmacy

Context

MPharm Programme: Introduction to Professionalism and Practice

Undergraduate (UG) students, Part 1

Number of participants in sessions: 20 (9 in the UK and 11 in Malaysia)
Session length: 60 minutes

Description

 Part 1 students studying the MPharm course at both the Reading and Malaysia campuses were
brought together using Blackboard Collaborate to compare Pharmacy Practice in each country.
 Kate wanted to encourage crossover between campuses and for students to get to know each
other before the Malaysian students came over to study in the UK for Part 3.
 Students based at each campus logged in to Collaborate on individual computers with a
headset.
 Both groups of students were in the Clinical Skills Suite on each campus with laptops and
headsets.
 Staff supported students in the physical rooms to get them settled and set-up.
 The session was designed around set discussion activities and students separated out into
groups that included students from both campuses, using the ‘Breakout room’ feature.

Impact

 Collaborate provided an effective way for students studying at different campuses to learn
together and begin to build relationships.
 Close cooperation was needed between the UK and Malaysian staff to set up the session.
 Students quickly picked-up how to use the tool, were using the Chat tool without prompting
and easily able to undertake the tasks in the breakout rooms.
 The session was activity based and students were discussing with each other. This made best
use of the technology to facilitate communication.
 There were good levels of interaction between students using the audio and video. However,
the first time people use the system interaction can initially be awkward.
 Some cultural differences were perceived. Malaysian students were quieter in the
conversations and UK-based students tended to lead.

Thoughts and reflections

 Kate and Sue were thoroughly prepared for the session and had rehearsed how to use the
‘breakout rooms’ and written a session plan with timings.
 Don’t expect to get as much done as you would in a face-to-face session or allow more time for
activities in this environment.
 As the students were located in the same room together they were spread out to minimise the
transfer of noise between them when talking. Pharmacy had a large enough room to allow this.
Feedback from students indicated they could easily take part from home.
 Pharmacy needed to purchase suitable headsets that could be re-used by different students.
Allow sufficient time to arrange ordering from IT.
 Make sure Chrome is installed on the University computers students are going to use.
 There was a significant investment of time and a learning curve to set up the session, as this
was the first time they had attempted this. Future sessions should be easier to facilitate.
 It’s not yet possible to save what has been written on the whiteboards in the breakout rooms.

(Use the PC – Microsoft Clipping tool https://support.microsoft.com/engb/help/13776/windows-use-snipping-tool-to-capture-screenshots
or MAC keyboard shortcut to take a screenshot of the whiteboard.)

 

Using Blackboard Collaborate for small group tutorials with distance learning students

By peteandrews Comment Closed

Adrian Aronsson-Storrier, School of Law                                                                                                                             a.m.storrier@reading.ac.uk

Context

LLM International Commercial Law (Distance)

Description

 Adrian held small group seminars with groups of around 5 students per online workshop.
Workshops were scheduled in all of the distance LLM modules, and ran weekly through the
Spring and Autumn terms. Collaborate was also used for individual dissertation supervision
sessions.
 These were Postgraduate Masters level distance learning students enrolled in a range of
optional LLM modules. Students attended from across the UK and the world.
 The Law School already offered online workshop sessions using a competing webinar product
(Adobe Connect). This software was complex for students to use, not supported centrally by
the University and was paid for from the School’s budget. We sought to investigate alternative
web conferencing solutions that would be simpler for our students whilst maintaining
equivalent functionality (slide sharing, chat, whiteboard etc).
 Blackboard Collaborate was chosen to replace Adobe Connect as it was simpler for students to
use (a more straightforward interface reduced initial student training time, the integration into
Blackboard made it simpler for students to log in and participate).
 Preparation was similar to distance workshops previously delivered with the earlier Adobe
Connect web conferencing tool. For some workshops slides were prepared, in others a series
of tutorial style questions were circulated to students in advance for discussion.
 After giving students an initial training session, delivering a class on Collaborate took no more
effort than delivering an equivalent session in an on campus module.

Impact

 Students quickly adapted to Collaborate. They made frequent use of the chat function and the
‘raise hand’ function, particularly in larger groups where many students wished to contribute to
a discussion.
 Student’s enrolling in the distance LLM are required to have access to their own computer,
headphones and internet connection.
 From a support perspective, the move to Collaborate required less ongoing staff and student
training than our previous web conferencing software – once set up on Blackboard it was simple
for students and staff to access Collaborate sessions for their weekly workshops.
 Blackboard Collaborate achieved everything we had previously delivered to students using
Adobe Connect. It had the advantage of being simpler for students to use, and the blackboard
integration made connecting to the sessions simpler.

Thoughts and Reflections

 Lecturers in the school of law tended to use Collaborate from their homes (distance workshops
are often scheduled outside core hours, to accommodate students in diverse time zones). This
required staff to have sufficient equipment (laptop, headphones or a headset).
 One challenge – which often impacts distance learning when working with students in less
economically developed nations – was issue of the student’s poor internet connection
impacting sessions. At times students (particularly in Africa and the Middle East) had poor
internet connections which prevented full video streaming. While the software does allow
students to participate by providing streaming audio only, this is less immersive for the student.
 Ensure that all participants are making use of headphones or a microphone headset. If students
rely on computer speakers there will often be some level of echo introduced into the web
conference, which can be distracting. Students without headphone should be encouraged to
mute their microphones when not speaking.
 Provide students with an introductory session on the software before beginning online
instruction. We used a general online induction day for students as a trial, allowing them to test
that the software worked and giving them time to learn the functionality before being required
to use it in class.

 

Update on making Word and PowerPoint accessible: By Professor Richard Mitchell

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Preamble

Earlier in the year, Laura Bennett and I wrote a blog on making Word and PowerPoint accessible, which reflected our experience of implementing the University’s policy on Inclusive Practice in T&L, which is available here.

Since that blog was written, the University has included Ally into Blackboard, which provides academics with a view on how accessible our documents are and step-by-step guidance on how to make them accessible. In this blog I reflect on Ally and other developments, including the part of the recent Accessibility Audit Report from JISC which covered one of my courses.

Ally in Blackboard

As is explained on the TEL Support Site, Ally is an add on to Blackboard which allows students to download your teaching material in alternative formats (such as in HTML for view on mobile phone, electronic braille, etc) and it provides an accessibility score on your material  as well as feedback and guidance to enable you to make the material more accessible. Instructors can see a colour coded dial with a percentage

 

 

 

 

If low, the file is deemed not accessible and needs immediate attention; if medium it is somewhat accessible and could use improvement; if high it is accessible but could be improved; and occasionally the file is judged perfect.

If you click on the icon, you are presented with a screen with the score, and an option to see all the issues. You can then see what you need to do, and how the score can be increased – though so far there is guidance on only some of the issues.

I then go back to the original Word or PowerPoint file, make the appropriate changes, and re upload them to Blackboard. I can then get a new assessment by Ally, though I tend to have to wait for it.

The percentages given can seem harshly low – I had a document with two images which I had not added Alt Text to (one being the University crest), and the score was about 50%. The file became perfect when I added suitable text to those images. I gather that Ally considers the lack of Alt Text as a more pressing issue, which accounts for the scoring.

It should be noted that Word and PowerPoint’s built in checker is satisfied if you enter a Title or Description to any Alt Text, but Ally is happy only if there is a description – so is there any point in adding a title?

I am told that Alt-Text is read by screen readers, which explains why Ally considers it important – whereas a Title can be what is shown when a mouse hovers over the figure.

Ally can’t assess how useful your Alt Text is, just that it is there – so you should use your judgement.

As we noted in the original blog, you don’t have to be perfect – most of my PowerPoint documents are rated as High, with a score of 99% – the concern being about contrast issues, but as of writing there is no guidance on where the issue occurs. I am occasionally judged as Perfect which is nice! However, this may be more of a judgement call, as it is usually obvious when viewed on the screen. Blackboard suggests downloading this tool to fix contrast issues.

One issue Ally flags is untagged PDF files. If, say, your source document is a Word file, and you correctly use styles such as Title, Heading 1, Heading 2, Normal, etc. and then decide to produce a PDF, I recommend that you do so by saving the document as PDF, but just before saving, press the Options button in the dialog box, and ensure the Document Tags for Accessibility option is ticked.

I have come to the conclusion, however, that it is better to upload Word or PowerPoint documents, rather than PDFs to Blackboard. Students can readily download such documents (in whatever format) and can change them as they require – such as adding notes to PowerPoint slides, for instance.

Using notes in PowerPoint

In 2017, I attended one of the public lectures I help to organise for the local IET on the Internet of Insecure Things. It was a very engaging lecture, comprising slides mainly composed of pictures, which the speaker in effect used as prompts. In contrast, if a slide comprises text which the speaker reads, albeit with some embellishments, a lecture can be dull.

However, from an accessibility point of view, such an approach does not provide much support. A solution to this is to use the notes section in PowerPoint. In fact, there is brief guidance in a few web sites which recommend that it is good practice if slides are decluttered and detail put in the notes section, though not specifically from an accessibility point of view.

I therefore experimented with one of my modules in the Spring term, where I simplified the text on slides, moving and embellishing some of the text into the notes section. The slides are less cluttered, and the students have access to the notes as they can download the PowerPoint from Blackboard, and they can add more detail if they want. That module went much better.

In 2018, JISC did an accessibility audit of some of the university pages and systems, and two courses in Blackboard, one of which being my second year Neural Networks module. It was noted that my lecture notes did not utilise the notes section, but that did not matter as sufficient information was there, and there were other resources on the module. However, I took it as affirmation that decluttering slides and using the notes section were good from an accessibility point of view.

Therefore, as I had planned, for this year I have reduced the amount of material on the slides for all my courses, and utilised the notes section. For this to be effective in the lecture room, the lecturer needs to use Presenter mode, where the students see the full slide, but the presenter on their screen sees, the slide, the next slide, and the notes section.

I asked IT for guidance on how this is achieved, as searches I did online did not help, and was told the following:

The reason presenter mode doesn’t work in the lecture theatres is that, although there are 2 physical screens, the system behaves as if there is only 1, it duplicates the first across all others.

This can be changed by holding the windows button + P. Then you can switch from ‘duplicate’ to ‘extend’ screens with the keyboard directional arrows + enter.

Once you have set the screen to extend, the PC will recognise 2 separate windows to operate with, and so presenter mode will work.

Please reset the room to the way you found it whenever you use this function, by pressing windows button + P and reselecting ‘duplicate’.

I have found that this works in some rooms – but not all, though I am lobbying.

What I can say is that I feel the lectures are going better, are more engaging, but it works best when the notes are visible (and hence provide some prompts) to the presenter.

Summary

From my experience, Ally is a useful tool for accessibility, though I do not have experience of students downloading material in alternative formats. There are some discrepancies between the assessment of accessibility between Ally and Word and PowerPoint, such as in the use of Alt Text. The score given by Ally seems disproportionate and it is a shame that you don’t get an immediate reassessment when you upload a changed version. It will be better when there is more guidance on addressing issues.

I also recommend the use of the notes section in PowerPoint, and believe it to be good practice in general and for accessibility. I hope that Presenter view will be working in all lecture theatres.