Enhancing and developing the use of OneNote Class Notebook beyond the Covid-19 pandemic

Enhancing and developing the use of OneNote Class Notebook beyond the Covid-19 pandemic

By michaelkilmister Comment Closed

 

By: Rita Balestrini, Department of Languages and Cultures, r.balestrini@reading.ac.uk

Overview

The project built on T&L innovation embraced in the Department of Languages and Cultures (DLC), where Microsoft’s OneNote Class Notebook (CN) was trialled during the Covid-19 pandemic to overcome the constraints of teaching languages remotely. The outcomes provided knowledge of DLC students’ experience of CN and understanding of the type of support needed by CN users to staff users of CN, and to colleagues in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) and Digital Technology Services (DTS), and informed the development of technical and pedagogical support and guidance for CN users.

Objectives

The project aimed to enhance student learning by improving the use of CN, and had the objective to facilitate sharing of knowledge and expertise, gain insights into students’ experience of CN and inform TEL and DTS decision-making on the tool.

Context

CN is a digital T&L tool to store materials (e.g. text, images, handwritten notes, links, recorded voice, videos), where students and teachers can work interactively in and outside the classroom. It is organised into three parts:

  • ‘Content Library’ – where only the teacher can add, edit, and delete materials.
  • ‘Collaboration Space’ – a place to collaborate in groups open to everyone in the class, where multiple users can work on a page simultaneously or asynchronously.
  • ‘Teacher Only’ – a private space invisible to students.
  • ‘Student Notebook’ – a private area that only a student and their teacher can see and use, where they can interact directly on a page.

CN continues to be used in some language modules as it proved to be effective beyond a remote teaching environment and offered features that supported accessibility and inclusivity in language learning.

screenshot of the classroom notebook
Screenshot of a Class Notebook © Rita Balestrini

Implementation

  • In 2022–2023, I held three sessions with DLC staff users to share practice and ideas on using CN, and record information on what support would enhance teaching with CN. I also held in-person, small group meetings with DLC CN student users from all year groups to gain insights into their experience of CN. The feedback gathered informed the development of a branched MS Forms survey, which was completed by 28 (of 50) student CN users.
  • I facilitated a cross-School (DLC, Institute of Education, Law) ‘teaching conversation’ to reflect critically on the pedagogical value of CN.
  • I wrote a project report for DTS and TEL and shared with them the findings from the needs analysis.

Impact

  • The project created a ‘space’ for the sharing of practices, knowledge, experience and expertise, which in turn, enabled the enhancement of the use of CN.
  • It enhanced students’ learning and increased their engagement with CN learning activities – as evidenced by the students’ survey.
  • As part of ‘internal monitoring and review’ practice, the outcomes of the ‘teaching conversation’, informed the School of Literature and Languages (SLL) T&L enhancement process.
  • The project should inform the integration of CN with other applications (e.g. Teams), and the provision of technical and pedagogical support for CN users.

Reflections

CN offers a paperless learning environment and facilitates the organisation of T&L materials in a clear and, ‘potentially’ visually intuitive, hierarchical structure. Students evaluated CN positively as a useful ‘digital binder’ and ‘learning tool’ (Average Rating [AR] 4.15 and 4:00 respectively, on a scale of 1 to 5). Most of them felt that materials and resources were easy to access (AR 3.89), and it was easy to take notes within CN (AR 3.74).

CN users generally agreed that navigation in CN is quite ‘fluid’ compared to Blackboard. However, I think that for this fluidity to be fully meaningful pedagogically CN requires a thoroughly thought-out structure, with reasoned and transparent ‘labelling’ throughout the learning environment.

There can be issues in meeting current assessment policies when using CN for summative assessment. However, CN greatly facilitates the provision of feedback with a digital pen or by audio-recording on a page. Staff value the possibility of monitoring individual and group activities and providing private, individualised feedback in different formats; students appreciate highly receiving feedback directly in their personal notebook, which stands out as a noteworthy result of the survey (AR 4.26), especially considering that feedback in general ‘is often framed as the dimension of students’ experience with which they are least satisfied’ (Winstone & Carless, 2020, p. 5).

The ‘Collaboration Space’ can be used for class activities, collaborative projects, sharing resources, and a channel for students’ voice – additional uses of this area depend on the subject taught. CN allows students to take ownership of a shared area and use it for independently chosen purposes, which helps create a sense of ‘community’ and a feeling of ‘online connectedness’ (Hehir et al., 2021).

Regarding technical issues, 68% of respondents did not report any. The others mentioned a variety of problems (e.g. syncing issues, ‘handwriting’ and ‘highlighting’ not anchored to text). Many reported difficulties were linked to using different CN versions, devices, or operating systems, which suggests that improvements could come with advice from technical support specialists.

Follow up

In future, students’ experience of using CN could greatly benefit from:

  • staff sharing and discussing practices across different subjects to facilitate pedagogical enhancements (e.g., communities of practice, special interest groups, TEL forums);
  • making access to CN easier and facilitating its integration with Teams and Blackboard;
  • the availability of expert support from DTS and TEL (e.g. technical assistance, TEL resources and sessions for users).

References

  • Hehir, H., Zeller M., Luckhurst, J., & Chandler T. (2021) Developing student connectedness under remote learning using digital resources: a systematic review. Education and Information Technologies, 26, 6531-6548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-021-10577-1
  • Winstone, N., & Carless, D. (2020) Designing effective feedback processes in higher education. Routledge.

A Partnership in SLL to Enhance Blended Learning Practices: an Analysis of the Process and Findings

By aaroncooper Comment Closed

Michael Lyons- School of Literature and Languages

m.lyons@reading.ac.uk 

Link back to case studies on the T and L Exchange website

Overview

PEBLSS (a Partnership to Enhance Blended Learning – between Staff and Students) was a project seeking to strengthen teaching and learning in SLL. It particularly focuses on enhancing methods of teaching and learning amidst the extraordinary conditions faced by staff and students which has resulted in the transition into blended and online learning.

Context

A survey was designed and sent to students within the School of Literature and Languages, to identify members of staff who have excelled at blended learning during the Covid-19 pandemic 2020-2021. This was done by identifying three key areas of learning (pre-recorded lectures, live sessions, and assessment) and asking students to name the members of staff whom they believe stood out based on each of these core areas and their reasons behind this. Interviews were conducted to complete case studies based on these responses. Overall, 76 students responded to the survey.

We aimed to reduce “survey fatigue” due to the substantial number of surveys that students have received throughout the course of the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, by keeping the questions to short answers and multiple-choice, students were more likely to respond and contribute their ideas within the survey.

Once the surveys were collected, the results were analysed to identify the members of staff that proved to have stood out among the students in each of the core areas. From this, interviews were arranged and conducted to allow for the chosen members of staff to expand on their experience of teaching during the blended learning approach.

Objectives

The questions were designed to obtain specific examples of good teaching practices, and for the members of staff to

  1. elaborate on their successful methods.
  2. discover what teaching practices were successfully put into place and the ways they could be adapted into future teaching.
  3. retrieving information from nominated staff regarding how they continued to carry out assessments and ensure students felt supported in their assessments in the transition to the blended learning environment.

Implementation

Thirty minutes was designated per interview; however, many of the interviews extended beyond the time frame due the detail of the answers. Interviews were recorded and saved onto Microsoft Stream, for the researchers to conduct further analysis.

Impact

Summary of findings for the pre-recorded lectures

  • Pre-recorded lectures offered the opportunity to bring in new, innovative audio-visual materials to support and enhance sessions. It was noted that different modes of delivery are important.
  • Pre-recorded lectures were received well when language and style of speech was concise but exaggerated. More emphasis is needed on the speech style rather than gestures (and other paralinguistic features), as these are lost online. Additionally, potentially politically sensitive topics need extra consideration for online sessions.
  • Guides about timeframes (like a week-by-week schedule) are useful for the organisation of pre-recorded lectures. Students know what they are learning when; examples of these practices were demonstrated in the interviews by a word document calendar, or a weekly bitesize email.
  • It was advised that longer segments for the pre-recorded lectures should be avoided. 20-minute segments were recommended, as this makes the sessions concise but the content for the segment is still detailed,thus maintaining student engagement online.
  • It is also advisable to have weekly folders, clearly labelled, with the pre-recorded lectures (with an embedded link), PowerPoint presentation, and any other specific resources or worksheets relevant to the screencast.
  • It was noted that it was advantageous to have short videos of around 2-3 minutes in length to go over the concepts of the lecture; this makes it easier for students to revise. It also ensures that staff have covered important materials more than once e.g., prioritisation of information.
  • Useful to have several check-ins with students near the beginning and middle of the module so that feedback about the pre-recorded lectures can be acted on whilst students are learning.
  • Discussion boards were useful for the screencast exercises and promoted more student engagement. It was another useful tool for students to feedback about the screencasts, or if they had any questions.
  • Timestamping information was beneficial. Outlining to students when certain parts or concepts are going to show in the pre-recorded lecture was advantageous because students can use the timestamps to revise specific information.
    • It was noted that pre-recorded lectures were challenging because of the constraints of timing, editing and personalisation of content. Additionally, use of the pre-recorded lectures for the future was a topic under discussion in the interviews. Staff recognised the benefits of having the pre-existing screencasts; however, ensuring the information was up-to-date and engaging for current students was a concern. It was also noted that if the pre-recorded lectures were personalised this year for current students, the session would need to be updated or reproduced for the next year group.

 

Summary of findings for the live sessions

  • The advantages of live sessions:
  • Attendance is strong – reflected in the marking
  • Online sessions easier than socially distanced face-to-face sessions for discussions and facilitating dialogue
  • Sharing of files – OneNote/Blackboard/Collaborate
  • The number of methods identified to help increase student participation

The disadvantages of live sessions:

  • Technology – Learning new technology – reliance of technology, difficult if not working

Reflection

This project has been widely beneficial, not only in identifying current good teaching practices, but also finding methods to help for future pre-recorded lectures, live sessions, and assessments. The project was also beneficial for us as students. In identifying good practices during the pandemic, we were able to feed this information back to staff (and students) at the Teach Share event on the 29th of June 2021.

Overall, it is evident from this project that there are many teaching practices used by staff both before and during the Covid-19 pandemic that are beneficial to other members of staff (as well as the students) and therefore this project highlighted how important it is to share teaching practices, not only within individual departments, but school and university-wide.

Online Delivery of Practical Learning Elements for SKE

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Jo Anna Reed Johnson, Gaynor Bradley, Chris Turner

j.a.reedjohnson@reading.ac.uk

Overview

This article outlines the re-thinking of how to deliver the science practical elements of the subject knowledge enhancement programme (SKE) due to the impact of Covid-19 in March 2020 and a move online.  This focuses on what we learnt from the practical elements of the programme delivery online as it required students to engage in laboratory activities to develop their subject knowledge skills in Physics, Chemistry and Biology related to school national curriculum over two weeks in June and July 2021.  Whilst there are some elements of the programme we will continue to deliver online post Covid-19, there are aspects of practical work our students would still benefit from hands on experience in the laboratory, with the online resources enhancing that experience.

Objectives

  • Redesign IESKEP-19-0SUP: Subject Knowledge Enhancement Programmes so it was COVID-safe and fulfilled the programme objectives in terms of Practical work
  • Redesign how students could access the school science practical work with no access to laboratories. This relates to Required Practical work for GCSE and A’Levels
  • Ensure opportunities for discussion and collaboration when conducting practical work
  • Provide students with access to resources (posted and shopping list)

Review student perspectives related to the response to online provision

Context

In June 2020 there was no access to the science laboratories at the Institute of Education (L10) due to the Covid pandemic. The Subject Knowledge Enhancement Programme (SKE) is a pre-PGCE requirement for applicants who want to train to be a teacher but may be at risk of not meeting the right level of subject knowledge (Teacher Standard 3) by the end of their PGCE year (one-year postgraduate teacher training programme).  We had 21 SKE Science (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) students on the programme, 3 academic staff, one senior technician and two practical weeks to run.  We had to think quickly and imaginatively.  With a plethora of school resources available online for school practical science we set about reviewing these and deciding what we might use to provide our students with the experience they needed.  In addition, in terms of the programme content for the practical weeks we streamlined our provision, as working online requires more time.

Implementation

In May 2020, the senior science technician was allowed access to the labs.  With a lot of work, she prepared a small resource pack with some basic equipment that was posted to each student.  This was supplemented with a shopping list that students would prepare in advance of the practical weeks.  For the practical week programme, we focused on making use of free videos that are available on YouTube and the Web (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBVxo5T-ZQM

and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsKVA88oG-M&list=PLAd0MSIZBSsHL8ol8E-a-xgdcyQCkGnGt&index=12).

Having been part of an online lab research project at the University of Leicester I introduced this to students for simulations along with PHET (https://www.golabz.eu/ and https://phet.colorado.edu/).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We also wanted students to still feel some sense of ‘doing practical work’ and set up the home labs for those topics we deemed suitable e.g. heart dissection, quadrats, making indicators.

 

 

Powerpoints were narrated or streamed.  We set up regular meetings with colleagues to meet in the morning before each practical day started.  We did live introductions to the students to outline the work to be covered that day.  In addition, we organised drop-in sessions such as mid-morning breaks and end of day reviews with the students for discussion.  Throughout, students worked in groups where they would meet, discuss questions and share insights.  This was through MS Teams meetings/channels where we were able to build communities of practice.

Impact

End of programme feedback was received via our usual emailed evaluation sheet at the end of the practical weeks and end of the programme.  5/21 responses.  The overall feedback was that students had enjoyed the collaboration and thought the programme was well structured.

‘I particularly enjoyed the collaborative engagement with both my colleagues and our tutors. Given that these were unusual circumstances, it was important to maintain a strong team spirit as I felt that this gave us all mechanisms to cope with those times where things were daunting, confusing etc but also it gave us all moments to share successes and achievements, all of which helped progression through the course. I felt that we had the right blend of help and support from our tutors, with good input balancing space for us to collaborate effectively.’

Student Feedback initial evaluation

‘I enjoyed “meeting” my SKE buddies and getting to know my new colleagues. I enjoyed A Level Practical Week and found some of the online tools for experimentation and demonstrating experiments very helpful’

Student Feedback initial evaluation

To supplement this feedback, as part of a small-scale scholarly activity across three programmes, we also sent out a MS Form for students to complete to allow us to gain some deeper insights into the transition to online learning.  22/100 responses.  For example, the students’ excitement of doing practical work, and the experience of using things online that they could then use in their own teaching practice:

‘…the excitement of receiving the pack of goodies through the post was real and I enjoyed that element of the program and it’s been genuinely useful. I’ve used some of those experiments that we did in the classroom and as PERSON B said virtually as well.’

Student Feedback MS Form

‘…some of the online simulators that we used in our SKE we’ve used. I certainly have used while we’ve been doing online learning last half term, like the PHET simulators and things like that…’

Student Feedback MS Form

The students who consented to take part engaged in four discussion groups (5 participants per group = 20 participants).  These took place on MS Teams and this once again highlighted the benefits of the online group engagement, as well as still being able to meet the programme objectives:

‘I just wanted to say, really. It was it was a credit to the team that delivered the SKE that it got my subject knowledge to a level where it needed to be, so I know that the people had to react quickly to deliver the program in a different way…’

Student Feedback Focus Group

There was some feedback that helped us to review and feedback into our programme development such as surprise at how much independent learning there is on the programme, and the amount of resources or other materials (e.g. exam questions).

Reflections

We adopted an integrated learning model:

 

We learnt that you do not have to reinvent the wheel.  With the plethora of tools online we just needed to be selective… asking ‘did the tool achieve the purpose or learning outcome?’.  In terms of planning and running online activities we engaged with Gilly Salmon’s (2004) 5 stage model of e-learning.   This provides structure and we would apply this to our general planning in the use of Blackboard or other TEL tools in the future.  We will continue to use the tools we used.  These are useful T&L experiences for our trainees as schools move more and more towards engagement with technology.

However, it was still thought by the students that nothing can replace actually practical work in the labs:

‘I liked the online approach to SKE but feel that lab work face-to-face should still be part of the course if possible. There are two reasons for this: skills acquisition/ familiarity with experiments and also networking and discussion with other SKE students.’                                                                                      Student Feedback MS Form

Where possible we will do practical work in the labs but supplement these with the online resources, videos and simulation applications.  We will make sure that the course structure prioritises the practical work but also incorporates aspects of online learning.

We will continue to provide collaborative opportunities and engage students online for group work and tutorials in future years.  We also found the ways in which we collaborated through communities of practice, on MS Teams Channels, was very effective.  We set up groups, who continued to work in similar ways throughout the course, who were able to share ideas by posting evidence, then engage in a discussion.  Again, this is something we will continue to do so that when our students are dispersed across the school partnership, in different locations, they can still be in touch and work on things collaboratively.

Links and References

Online Lab case Studies

https://www.golabz.eu/

https://phet.colorado.edu/

Practical week Free Videos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBVxo5T-ZQM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsKVA88oG-M&list=PLAd0MSIZBSsHL8ol8E-a-xgdcyQCkGnGt&index=12).

Blended Learning – Exploring the Experience of Disabled Law Students

By aaroncooper Comment Closed

Amanda Millmore, Sharon Sinclair-Graham, Dr. Rachel Horton, Darlene Sherwood, Sheldon Allen, Lauren Fuller, Konstanina Nouka, Will Page & Jessica Lane

a.millmore@reading.ac.uk 

School of Law (& Disability Advisory Service)

Overview

This student-staff partnership included students with disabilities and long-term conditions, academics in the School of Law and a Disability Advisor. Student partners ran a cohort-wide questionnaire and facilitated focus groups with disabled students to discover what has worked well this academic year with blended learning and where things could be improved. This work has provided a blueprint for those hoping to use blended learning to deliver accessible education for all.

Objectives

  • To magnify the voice of our disabled students
  • To understand the positives and negatives of blended learning from their various viewpoints
  • To improve current teaching, as well as planning for future teaching and learning activities.

Context

The move to blended learning during the Covid-19 pandemic led to many changes to of the way that Law was taught in the 20/21 academic year. Student-Staff Partnership Group (SSP) feedback indicated that disabled students were affected more than most by this change. This project was an opportunity to understand more about the impact on these students and to amplify their voices.

Implementation

Given the constraints of working during the pandemic, our partnership worked virtually throughout, using only MS Teams meetings and sharing documents. Students designed a cohort-wide questionnaire to find out about the wider student experience with different aspects of blended learning.

This was followed-up by student partners facilitating smaller focus groups of students with disabilities and long-term conditions.

The partnership then assimilated all of the evidence they had gathered to produce short term and long term recommendations as well as highlighting what has worked well with blended learning.

Together we prepared a report with our evidence and recommendations and this has been shared not only within the School of Law but widely across the University, including with the University’s Blended Learning Project, the Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) team and the Committee on Student Experience and Development (COSED), as well as with colleagues in different functions and departments.

Impact

Positives from blended learning were highlighted including the flexibility of pre-recorded lecture videos, which enabled students to stop, pause and revisit lecture materials and work at their own pace and in their own time. Students preferred lecture recordings to be in the region of 20 minutes, as longer than that could pose a barrier for some students.

In the short term the partnership recommended the scheduling of lecture release days across core modules, so that lectures were made available on set days. 194 students were put into 46 study groups and a video to demystify the ECF process was recorded and shared widely (https://web.microsoftstream.com/video/714b6fa4-83f3-457c-a37b-3f4904e63691). These recommendations were all adopted.

Longer term the partnership recommended the consistent use of meaningful weekly plans (now part of the Teaching & Learning Framework for 2021/22) and improvements to Blackboard, notably a uniform layout across modules for Law students, including a single menu location for joining links to online classes.

The project and its recommendations have been shared within the School of Law, across the University and more widely at national conferences, all with students co-presenting the work.

Students were invited to the School of Law’s Blackboard Working Group and have been instrumental in driving forwards their recommendation for a consistent cross-module Blackboard layout for the next academic year. Students are also working with the TEL team to produce best practice videos for staff.

Reflections

This has been a hugely successful partnership project, not merely for the clear recommendations and tangible outcomes which are aimed to improve the experience of all students with blended learning this academic year and moving into the future, but also in the way that it has amplified the voices of students with disabilities and long-term conditions at School and University level.

As a partnership it has been influential, and the recommendations have been heard across the university and many have been adopted within the School of Law, but the positives for the individual student partners cannot be underestimated. They have gained valuable employability skills and experience in project work, presenting at conferences and advocating within meetings with staff. Moreover, as a project in which clear recommendations were given which have been heeded, it has improved the sense of community for all students, emphasising that the School of Law is a space where student views are important and they can contribute to their studies and make a difference.

Focus group participants with disabilities and long-term conditions have been empowered, with 2 first year participants subsequently volunteering for a new partnership project being run in the School of Law, as they can see the impact that their involvement can have.

Links and References

  • Amanda Millmore – “A Student-Staff Partnership exploring the experience of disabled Law students with blended learning at University of Reading, UK “ in Healey, R. & Healey, M. (2021) Socially-just pedagogic practices in HE: Including equity, diversity, inclusion, anti-racism, decolonising, indigenisation, well-being, and disability.mickhealey.co.uk/resources
  • Abstract for Advance HE Teaching & Learning Conference session: Teaching and learning conference – on demand abstracts_0.pdf (advance-he.ac.uk)
  • To follow – links to CQSD TEL videos & guidance (in progress).
  • We are happy to share the project report upon request – please get in touch if you would like a copy.

10th LLAS e-Learning Symposium: looking back and looking forward on technology enhanced learning for languages by Pilar Gray-Carlos

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

LLAS (Subject Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies) recently celebrated the 10th anniversary of the annual e-Learning Symposium at Southampton. During the past 10 years the e-Learning Symposium has provided an area where academics and educators in the field of linguistics and languages have had a common place to share innovation, creativity and results of the use of new technologies applied to teaching and learning languages.

This 10th anniversary has provided an opportunity to briefly pause to look back and reflect on how we have tackled the challenges and opportunities in the past years. A reflection particularly highlighted by Marion Sadoux, (Director of the Language Centre, University of Nottingham, Ningbo) in her key note: “10 years on, challenging 10 venerable Assumptions about Languages and e-Learning” where she provides her experience on challenges, ideas and beliefs, that technology enhanced learning has brought to the language community. As key notes go, it is also worth mentioning both the opening key note on a very much in vogue area, MOOCs, given by Sara Person and Chris Cavey (British Council); and the closing key note: an account of a personal journey through digital and networked technologies, shared by Benoit Guilbaoud (University of Manchester).

Contributors to this 10th edition presented a wide range of projects. There were projects based on collaboration (Collaborative productions of learning objects on French literary works using LOC software, Christian Penman, Edinburgh Napier University; Identity and participation in telecollaboration, Francesca Helm, University of Padova Italy); projects for student mobility, (ICTell Project: virtual exchanges to prepare for student mobility, Marta Giralt and Catherine Jeanneau, University of Limerick); and projects that explore the use of mobile apps such as WhatsApp to prepare for year abroad (Isabel Cobo-Palacios, Billy Brick and Tiziana Cervi-Wilson, Coventry University) or twitter both for language boosting (Alessia Plutino, University of Southampton) and as a community of practice tool for language learners (Fernando Rosell-Aguilar, Open University). Together with a variety of papers on the use of wikis and blogs, reflection on MOOCS, blended learning, etc.

The symposium also offered the opportunity to participate in workshops such as the use of digital video and online discussions; blended learning techniques to maximise lexical retention; tips for telecollaboration with VLEs and using free  digital tools (SpeakApps) for encouraging speaking and learning.

The world has become a bigger place, access to information is faster and varied, and the demand to respond to new tools for and manners of delivery is here to stay, so will the LLAS e-Learning Symposium be. It will continue to help us to stay connected, to explore, and to share our ideas with our colleagues not only in the UK but across the world.

Watch the recording of plenary sessions at https://www.llas.ac.uk/livestream or for more detailed information on some of the case studies visit http://research-publishing.net/publications/10-years-of-the-llas-elearning-symposium-case-studies-in-good-practice/

Flexible Learning: Blended Learning for the Biosciences

By edwardwhite Comment Closed

Recently, we had the opportunity to participate in the Teaching & Learning Showcase event on ‘Flexible Learning’, put together by the CDoTL team, during which we presented the Existing and Emerging Biotechnologies (EEB) Framework. You can read more about our presentation on our blog: http://blogs.reading.ac.uk/bioscience-skills/tflexible-learning-presentation.

Continue reading →