Tel Tales

Adventures in Technology Enhanced Learning @ UoP

Author: Stephen Webb (Page 1 of 3)

A generated image of a student seating on a chair at a desk with their hands in a position as if they were typing on a keyboard.

RIDE 2023 – Sustaining Innovation: Research and Practice

April 11, 2023 / / 0 Comments

The Centre for Online and Distance Education (CODE) is a University of London initiative focusing on research, training, capacity building, and strategy and policy development to support innovation in online and distance education. On 28 and 29 March 2023, CODE held its 17th annual conference – a hybrid in-person and online event – on Research in Distance Education (RIDE). The theme of RIDE 2023 was sustaining innovation and sustainable practices.

Here are a half-dozen of my personal highlights and takeaways from the conference:

Photo of the outside of Senate House in London. A grey imposing Art Deco building.

Senate House London

  1. In-person conferences are better than virtual conferences. Last week I met someone from my undergraduate days, a person I hadn’t seen in four decades. And I caught up with a colleague from the early days of the TEL team, who is now working in London. (It’s remarkable how many Portsmouth EdTech people seem to have ended up in London!) It was great to reminisce and to hear what is new. These interactions I guess might have happened online, but I doubt it.
  2. Hybrid conferences are hard to get right. The Senate House was constructed in the 1930s, and it is simply not set up to handle a hybrid conference. The organisers did their best to ensure that in-person and online participants enjoyed an equivalent experience, but the limitations of the technology and the physical spaces in the building made it difficult. I can understand why conference organisers want to run hybrid events (and why teachers want to run hybrid lectures) but these are hard things to get right. I have attended many excellent online conferences, and many excellent in-person conferences, but I cannot recall a hybrid event that has ever worked seamlessly.
  3. The sector is continuing to debate and think-through the opportunities and threats posed by generative AI. Professor Mike Sharples, from the OU, delivered an excellent keynote address. He noted that he had given the talk several times recently, and each time he had to update it: developments in this field are currently happening on a weekly basis. (It was also interesting to learn that Mike began research into AI and education during his PhD – about 40 years ago!)
  4. The concentration on sustainability provided an interesting lens through which to view our practice. One session looked at the move from in-person, paper-based exams to online exams. The claim was that this was a much more environmentally friendly approach to distance education. That might be so – but a full accounting was not given of the environmental costs of online. A lot more research is needed.
  5. The University of London Worldwide is experimenting with AI tutors. The intention is not to replace human tutors with AI tutors but to see whether this technology can help provide some elements of a personalised education at scale. They are just at the start of this project – it will be interesting to see how it develops.

Credit Image: Photo by Open Journey

A girl sitting down with a book opened turning her head to smile at the robot next to her.

AI and Higher Education: Is it time to rethink teaching and assessment?

March 13, 2023 / / 0 Comments

On 22 February I took part in a roundtable debate on the topic “AI and Higher Education: Is it time to rethink teaching and assessment?”, the event being organised and facilitated by Graide, a UK-based Ed Tech company that uses AI to provide improved feedback in STEM subjects. (I dislike the term ‘artificial intelligence’ in this context, but I think I am fighting a losing battle here. In the interests of clarity, I’ll use the term AI in this blog post.) 

Given the recent furore around generative AI, and its ability to create human-like outputs, Graide thought it would be timely to bring together a variety of voices – senior managers, academics, developers, students – to discuss the potential impact of this new technology on higher education. I was joined on the panel by Bradley Cable (student at Birmingham University); Alison Davenport (Professor of Corrosion Science at Birmingham University); Ian Dunn (Provost of Coventry University); Manjinder Kainth (CEO of Graide); Tom Moule (Senior AI Specialist at Jisc); and Luis Ponce Cuspinera (Director of Teaching and Learning at Sussex University).     

It was fascinating to hear the range of opinions held by the panel members and by the 400+ people who attended the event (and who could interact via polls and via chat). If you are interested in my opinion of the technology then you might want to watch a recording of the debate; alternatively, in the paragraphs below, I’ll attempt to summarise my feelings about Bing, ChatGPT, and similar programs.

* * *

It is easy to see why there should be fears about this technology, particularly around assessment: students might pass off AI-generated content as their own. Critics of the technology have numerous other, entirely valid, concerns: the models might produce biased outputs (after all, they have been trained on the internet!); companies will presumably start to charge for access to AI, which raises questions of equity and digital poverty; the output of these models is often factually incorrect; and so on and so on.

But this technology also possesses the clear potential to help students learn more deeply and lecturers teach more effectively. 

I believe that if we embrace this technology, understand it, and use it wisely we might be able to provide personalised learning for students; design learning experiences that suit a student’s capabilities and preferences; and provide continuous assessment and feedback to enable students themselves to identify areas where they need to improve. The potential is there to provide at scale the sort of education that was once reserved for the elite. 

Note the emboldened if in the paragraph above. To obtain the outcome we desire we need to embrace and explore this technology. We need to understand that the output of large language models relies on statistical relationships between tokens; it does not produce meaning – only humans generate meaning. And we need to use this technology wisely and ethically. It is not clear at this point whether these conditions will be met. Instead, some people seem to want to shut down the technology or at least pretend that it will have no impact on them.

I have heard numerous academics respond to this technology by demanding a return to in-person, handwritten exams. (Would it not be better to rethink and redesign assessment, with this new technology in mind?) I have even heard some lecturers call for a complete ban on this technology in education. (Is that possible? Even if it were, would it be fair to shield students from tools they will have to use when they enter the workforce?) 

* * *

Fear of new technology dates back millennia. Plato, in the Phaedrus, a work composed about 370 BCE, has Socrates argue against the use of writing: 

“It will implant forgetfulness in their [the readers] souls. They will cease to exercise memory because they rely on that which is written, calling things to remembrance no longer from within themselves, but by means of external marks.”

Ironically, we only know about Plato’s argument against writing because it was written down.

More recently, some critics argued that the introduction of calculators would impair students’ mathematical ability. (The research is clear: children’s maths skills are not harmed by using calculators – so long as the devices are introduced into the curriculum in an integrated way.)  Even more recently, some people argued that spellcheckers would impair students’ ability to spell correctly. (It seems the reverse might be the case: students are getting immediate feedback on spelling errors and this is improving their spelling.)

Perhaps it is a natural human response to fear any new technology. And in the case of generative AI there are legitimate reasons for us to be fearful – or at least to be wary of adopting the technology.

But the technology is not going to go away. Indeed, it will almost certainly improve and become more powerful. I believe that if we are thoughtful in how we introduce AI into the curriculum; if we focus on how AI can support people to achieve their goals rather than replace people; if we produce a generation of students that use the technology effectively, ethically, and safely – well, we could transform education for the better.  

Credit Image: Photo by Stable Diffusion 2.1

Self portraid of man looking at compuetr screen - where do we end and AI start?

TEL in ’22 – and looking forward to ’23

December 5, 2022 / / 1 Comment

(Co-writer: ChatGPT)

In 2022 the TEL team said “goodbye” to some valued colleagues, who moved to take up different roles within the University, and we said “hello” to new colleagues who joined us. Chris, Jo, and Mike have already introduced themselves on TEL Tales, so I would like to use this end-of-year post to discuss a couple of work-related highlights: our implementation of Moodle 4.0 and, regarding the key area of assessment and feedback, our pilot of the WiseFlow end-to-end assessment platform.

Moodle 4.0

Moodle 4.0 is the latest version of the Moodle learning management system, and it includes many new features and improvements that aim to enhance the user experience and support better learning outcomes. Some of the key improvements in Moodle 4.0 include:

  • A new and improved user interface: Moodle 4.0 features a redesigned and modern user interface that is more intuitive and user-friendly, and that provides easy access to the most important features and functions.
  • Enhanced learning analytics and reporting: Moodle 4.0 includes improved learning analytics and reporting tools that provide teachers with more detailed and actionable insights on students’ learning, allowing them to track their progress and identify areas for improvement.
  • Improved accessibility and support for mobile devices: Moodle 4.0 has been designed to be more accessible and user-friendly for users with disabilities, and it includes support for mobile devices, allowing students to access their learning materials and activities on the go.
  • More options for personalization and customization: Moodle 4.0 provides teachers and administrators with more options for personalization and customization, allowing them to tailor the learning environment to the specific needs and preferences of their learners.

Overall, Moodle 4.0 is a significant improvement over previous versions of the learning management system, and it offers many new features and enhancements that can support better learning outcomes and a more engaging and effective learning experience.

At this point I would like to ask the reader: did you notice anything unusual about my discussion of Moodle 4.0?

Moving on, another major project for the TEL team has been to support a pilot implementation of the WiseFlow end-to-end assessment platform. Our hope is that a dedicated platform will allow us to improve our practices around assessment and feedback. Let’s explore that idea below in a little more detail.

Assessment and feedback

There are many different ways to assess students, and the best approach will depend on the specific learning goals and objectives, as well as the context and needs of the learners. Some key principles and strategies that can help to ensure effective assessment of students include:

  • Align assessment with learning goals: The assessment of students should be closely aligned with the learning goals and objectives of the course or programme. This will help to ensure that the assessment is focused on the most important and relevant learning outcomes and that it provides valid and reliable information on students’ progress and achievement.
  • Use a variety of assessment methods: Different assessment methods can provide different types of information and insights into students’ learning, and it is important to use a range of methods in order to get a comprehensive picture of their progress and achievement. Some common assessment methods include tests, quizzes, projects, presentations, portfolios, and observations.
  • Provide timely and meaningful feedback: Feedback is an essential component of assessment, and it is important to provide students with timely and meaningful feedback on their progress and performance. This feedback should be clear, specific, and actionable, and it should help students to understand their strengths and weaknesses, and identify areas for improvement.
  • Engage students in the assessment process: Students should be actively involved in the assessment process, and they should be given opportunities to reflect on their own learning, evaluate their progress, and set goals for improvement. This can help to foster a growth mindset and a sense of ownership and responsibility for their own learning.

Overall, effective assessment of students requires careful planning, the use of a variety of assessment methods, timely and meaningful feedback, and student engagement in the assessment process.

Again, at this point I would like to ask the reader: did you notice anything unusual about my discussion of assessment and feedback?

I inserted those italicised questions above because I (Stephen Webb) did not write any of the text in the two subsections. My “co-author” (ChatGPT) wrote the text.

In 2022, GPT3 (Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3) became a mainstream technology. At least a dozen apps are available that can provide clear, comprehensible text-based responses to prompts provided by a user. An app such as ChapGPT can write essays (and poems, and computer code, and much else besides). And many of our students will know this.

Similar technology can generate artwork. The artwork accompanying this blog post is an original by DALL-E, from a prompt I provided. DALL-E is a much better artist than I can ever hope to be.

I hesitate to call this technology Artificial Intelligence because it is neither artificial nor intelligent; I prefer the term Assistive Computation. Whatever we call the technology, though, I believe that in 2023 we need, as educators, to start grappling with its implications. Can we reasonably assess students by setting them essays to write, when apps can spit out the essays for them? What does the technology mean for notions of authorship and plagiarism? (You will notice that I have credited ChatGPT as being the co-author of this blog post; is that reasonable or meaningful?) What are the best strategies for learning with this technology?

Of course, teachers as well as students can use Assistive Computation. As an experiment, recently, an academic asked ChatGPT to generate a question in a particular knowledge domain that could be set for a first-year undergraduate essay. (The question it generated was entirely suitable.) The academic then asked ChatGPT to generate a rubric for the question. (The rubric was acceptable.) Then the academic asked ChatGPT to write an essay based on the question it had set. (The essay showed no insight, made no new points but would have received a passing grade.) Finally, the academic asked ChatGPT to mark the essay according to the rubric. (The feedback, if nothing else, was at least provided in a more timely fashion than human teachers can provide.)

This experiment suggests to me that either (i) we cut out the middlemen (students and teachers) and let AI do whatever it wants; or (ii) we work together – both students and teachers – to understand how to use Assistive Computation to improve teaching and learning. 

There are many questions here. And I believe 2023 is the year we all need to start grappling with them. Another question: should educators be concerned about this technology? I’ll let my co-author answer:

It’s natural for educators to be concerned about the potential impact of technology on their profession. However, it’s important to note that systems like ChatGPT are not capable of replacing the role of a human educator. While they may be able to generate text, they do not have the ability to understand or evaluate the content of that text in the same way that a human can. It’s also worth considering that the use of such systems may actually highlight the importance of critical thinking and analysis skills, which are vital for success in education and beyond. In the end, the role of educators will continue to be important in helping students develop these skills and prepare for the future.

I (the human, not the AI) would like to wish you an enjoyable festive period and a happy New Year!

Credit Image: An original by DALL-E

learning design

TEL in 2021

January 10, 2022 / / 0 Comments

Twelve months ago I reviewed how TEL had navigated 2020, the strangest year I guess any of us have experienced. The TEL team, by implementing several new technologies and enhancing existing technologies, helped support the University’s pivot to what the literature now refers to as “emergency remote teaching” (ERT). Now, at the start of 2022, it is worth reflecting on what we learned during 2021 – a year in which Covid carried on posing problems.

The first point to make is that technology continued to be used heavily. As the University’s “blended and connected” approach to teaching and learning bedded in, and we experienced the welcome sight of students once again milling around on campus, I expected Moodle use to drop compared to last year. September 2021 did indeed see a drop in monthly users compared to September 2020. But almost the same number of users accessed Moodle in October 2021 as in October 2020. And 10% more users accessed in November 2021 compared to November 2020. In part this use pattern will have mirrored the waves of the epidemic, with online offering a safe environment for teaching and learning. But in part it shows, I believe, that technology has become embedded in teaching and learning, in a way that was not the case just two years ago.

The increasing use of Panopto provides another example. The last time I looked (which was six weeks ago; these figures will already be outdated!) staff had created 87,410 videos and recorded 35,442 hours of content. Students had racked up 2.23 million views and downloads. These are large numbers, and again they demonstrate that staff and students are engaging with technology in a way we could not have predicted two years ago.

Nevertheless, we need to ask: in 2021 did we fully embrace the opportunities offered by a blended and connected approach to teaching and learning?

I suspect the answer is “no”: to a large extent we were all still operating in ERT mode.

The reasons for this are understandable. It takes time to redesign a course or module so that students can get the most out of a blended and connected environment. Effective redesign takes the skills and experience of a mix of people. And the process requires support from professional services. That broad, team-based approach to the redesign of courses and modules has not been part of the culture at Portsmouth – so although it is possible to point to numerous individual examples of good, innovative practice, I believe the University as a whole has been unable to take full advantage of a blended and connected approach.

One of my hopes for 2022 is that we will see a much more considered use of technology in teaching and learning. In some cases that will mean more technology, in some cases different technology, and in some cases less technology. The key is to identify the best blend of activities to ensure students can learn and can demonstrate mastery of that learning. In other words, I hope in 2022 we will see much more emphasis on learning design.

In order to further this ambition TEL, AcDev, and Faculty colleagues, working under the leadership of Professor Ale Armellini, are developing enABLe – a framework based on well established and well researched principles, but one that is new to Portsmouth. The intention is to offer structured and collaborative workshops, at the course or module level, around learning design (and learning re-design). These collegiate, student-focused, needs-driven workshops are flexible: they can be used for new programme development, for programmes needing attention around learning and teaching as flagged in the EQUIP process, and for programmes simply requiring a refresh in a specific area such as feedback. In each case, the workshops are founded on the key principles of Active Blended Learning. If you would like to learn more, please contact Sarah Eaton.

At some point the pandemic will become endemic and, as politicians tell us, we will “learn to live with the virus”. But when that happens we should take care not to forget the lessons – both positive and negative – of 2020 and 2021. It would be foolish for us to try to return to our teaching practices of 2019. Amanda Gorman, the poet who read at President Biden’s inauguration, ends her latest poem, New Year’s Lyric, with the following lines:

“So let us not return to what was normal,

But reach toward what is next…”

I think that is a perfect sentiment for education in 2022.

 

Designers should always keep their users in mind

From compliance to culture

January 18, 2021 / / 1 Comment

The Public Sector Bodies Accessibility Regulations (PSBAR) provides clear legal requirements for universities in terms of making learning accessible for all students. In turn, most universities have begun a journey towards compliance with PSBAR. This is a good thing, right? Well, not necessarily; at least, not by itself.

Alistair McNaught, a leading champion of accessibility and inclusion for the HE sector, argues that we need to move from an approach based on compliance to one of culture change, a culture in which we minimise barriers to learning and maximise the benefits of different learning technologies. As educators we need to ask: who is consuming our resources, what are their needs, and how can we most effectively meet those needs?

The need for us to shift from a compliance-based approach to one of developing a culture of accessibility maturity is clear when you compare a university virtual learning environment (VLE) with the other types of website covered by PSBAR.

A typical public sector body – a local council, for example – will often run a website that has content that rarely changes, is primarily text-based, and is under the control of a small team of web experts. A university VLE, on the other hand, typically has thousands of academics with a range of skill sets uploading a bewildering variety of content and pointing to third-party tools on a daily basis. A compliance-only approach for universities is thus extremely challenging. In the worst case, a compliance-only approach could lead to unintended consequences that are entirely counter-productive (and there are anecdotal accounts of this happening): an institution could choose to be “compliant” with PSBAR by dispensing with digital diversity and reverting to paper handouts. If they did this it wouldn’t matter if the handouts were poor-quality, smudged, third-generation photocopies – because the accessibility standards don’t apply to printouts. This “compliant” approach would be bad for all students but it would hugely disadvantage disabled students – which is, of course, the opposite of what PSBAR hopes to achieve.

McNaught visited UoP a few years ago when he worked for Jisc as their Accessibility Subject Matter Expert. He played the role of a “mystery shopper”, acting as a disabled student who was trying to access the University VLE, website, and other online systems. He is now an independent consultant and has recently posted some thought-provoking articles about accessibility maturity in an educational context. Throughout 2020 he worked with the charity AbilityNet to build on and update the old TechDis Accessibility Maturity Model. Together they have developed two versions of a maturity model: an institutional model and a course/module model. For anyone interested in issues of digital accessibility and inclusion, it is worth following McNaught’s upcoming series of blog posts.

At the close of 2020, McNaught also published a couple of related posts (part 1 and part 2) that provided an explicit example of how PSBAR can lead to unintended consequences. The example involves something with which UoP and many other universities have been grappling since we all increased the amount of video being produced: captioning.

At face value, the legislation requires us to provide 100% accurate captions for deaf people. A risk-averse institution that lacks the budget to create “compliant content” might remove videos from the VLE. This unintended consequence would have a negative impact on all students, including disabled students. McNaught argues that an approach rooted in accessibility maturity would take into account context, and would provide a roadmap for improving video accessibility.

For example, many courses provide most of their content as text. Alongside this, some tutors provide a video version of the content. If the video explanation provides no more information than a text alternative, then the video does not require captions. It’s only if a video introduces new information, not explicit in the text, that the issue of captioning arises. So that’s one lesson: depending upon the context, videos can be an alternative format.

Here is another example of where context is important, and where the guiding principle must be a pedagogic purpose. Imagine a video of a debate. The video might be used for different teaching purposes: to examine rhetorical devices, to study non-verbal communication, to illustrate legal arguments, to highlight technical recording considerations … there are many possible uses. And the best accessibility solution for each use case might well be different! Captioning might not be the best solution. Thus if you provide a caption and then tick the box marked “compliant video” you might nevertheless have created a barrier, not a solution, to learning needs.

Or consider a video of a long-winded, rambling, needlessly prolix interview: a summary consisting of a few bullet points might well be a better solution – for all students – than captions.

Context is important. As McNaught writes: “digital accessibility is about culture change … we need to steer a path between legalism and realism, a path that raises awareness without raising hackles and that encourages skills rather than excuses”. Steering that path won’t be easy – but the destination makes the effort worthwhile.

Credit image: Photo by fauxels from Pexels

TEL in 2020

TEL in 2020

December 18, 2020 / / 0 Comments

Well … 2020 has been quite a year. The most extraordinary 12 months any of us have experienced. Although 2020 has had its stresses (to put it mildly) I’m proud at how the TEL team has helped the University maintain its mission. Our existing students were able to progress and new students have been able to start their University career. Without technology, that would have been impossible.   

Like many people, we understood the disruptive potential of Covid-19 in late February. By early March we started thinking about the support we could offer if the University had to deliver teaching remotely. We thus had the elearning Tools website ready to publish when the VC sent his email about home working.  

That move to home working affected the TEL team less than many other teams in the University – partly because many of us already had some experience of home working and partly because we work with technology on a daily basis. All we need to do the basics of our job is a fast, stable internet connection. (One team member, stuck abroad when airlines began to remove scheduled flights, spent several days working from Australia. For a while we truly were providing around-the-clock service!) It helped the team enormously that we used SLACK: the platform held a record of our thinking and enabled people to catch up on discussions they might otherwise have missed.  

That’s not to say working at home (or living at work?) was without challenges – especially for those of us who were homeschooling children or who had other caring responsibilities. One lesson I think we learned far too late was this: when we’re working at home we don’t need to be available all the time. Too many of us jumped to respond to a SLACK message immediately or to answer an email the moment it reached our inbox. It’s nice to know our team members are conscientious – but that “always-there” mentality is ultimately self-defeating. And although SLACK enabled us to work efficiently while we were remote, it’s undeniable that face-to-face communication is quicker and less prone to misunderstanding than text-based communication. All that raises an interesting question: when we get back to some sort of normality, will we all rush back into the office? Not many people miss their commute, but some do miss the office environment – so will we work more flexibly, with one or two days spent in the office and the rest working at home? Or will some of us become full-time home-workers?  

Returning from speculation on future events to events that happened back in the spring of 2020: the University started to develop its “Blended and Connected” approach to the new academic year. To support that initiative, the TEL team created the website Preparing for teaching in a blended learning context, with content coming from across the whole of DCQE. We also worked closely with our colleagues in Academic Development to put on the TEL Tales Blended Learning Festival (and more recently a Blended Learning Mini-Fest).

The “Blended and Connected” approach allowed us to address a long-standing complaint from students. In response to our yearly Digital Experience Tracker, students regularly criticised the lack of consistency across their Moodle modules. We now had the chance to develop and implement a templated approach to Moodle. The TEL team also improved the Moodle theme, in light of co-creation work with a group of University computing students studying UX/UI design.

Of course, all those other tasks involved in running a large Moodle installation did not go away because of the pandemic. Integrations with other systems (more of which below) had to be managed, the upgrade to Moodle version 3.9 had to take place, and all of this took place as the University moved from Quercus to SITS. (Can anything be more stressful for a university than changing Student Record systems in the middle of a pandemic?) The SITS project touched most aspects of University life; for us, it required the development of new feeds into Moodle. 

Moodle itself has performed robustly since the start of the academic year, despite routinely serving numbers of students that in previous years would have been considered extraordinary. By the start of December our new Moodle had clocked up 1,264,306 logins and students had engaged in 14,088,187 activities (read/writes). Phew… 

Throughout 2019, discussions and consultations around content capture had taken place (and a new policy on content capture was eventually agreed). We entered 2020, however, in a difficult place. We were concerned about the technologies we had available to support content capture: our existing platforms had reached end-of-life. The team facilitated a number of supplier demonstrations early in the year, with the last demonstration taking place just before the work-from-home directive took hold, and UoP chose Panopto – the most widely adopted video platform within universities. The implementation and roll-out of such a platform would normally take place over the course of a full year, but we made Panopto available (complete with Moodle integration and a support website) within six weeks. Quite an achievement! And the platform is being heavily used: by November, we had 29,793 videos created; 10,464 hours of video created; 736,081 views and downloads; and 97,759 hours of video delivered. Again, phew…    

To support synchronous delivery for the new “Blended and Connected” approach, the University purchased Zoom. And, of course, we were quick to integrate this with Moodle. One useful feature in Zoom, which at that point could not easily be replicated by existing options such as Meet and WebEx, was the easy creation of breakout rooms. (Offering a plethora of technologies that do similar things – Zoom, WebEx, Meet – has the potential to lead to confusion for staff and an inconsistent experience for students. It can be difficult to take options away from people; in some cases, it might be technically impossible to remove options. But – in the interests of a consistent student experience – perhaps we need to be firmer in our recommendations of what tools to use?)

We invested in other tools, too: Padlet to facilitate collaboration; Vevox as an audience response system; and we continued to push Nearpod for interactive lessons. For all of these, we continued to provide our usual training support for staff, and offered face-to-face and small-group sessions – mediated by Zoom, WebEx, and Meet! 

Throughout the pandemic, the TEL team has been active on social media – and the stream of positive, uplifting, motivational messages from TEL accounts were well received during the lockdown. More than one member of staff said the posts cheered them up!

We worked with staff across DCQE to help them create support sites (for example the Wellbeing and ASK sites) and with staff across the University in workstrands, workstreams, and elsewhere. We supported departments in adapting to an online alternative to their usual ‘go-to method’ of face to face presenting such as the Staff Induction Welcome Event for new staff members held by HR. I hope that cross-institution working carries on when we return to some form of normality because everyone agrees it has been beneficial.

What else? Well, we have kept abreast of accessibility issues and our responsibilities under PSBAR. This is a difficult issue for all universities: the legislation was written, I believe, with static content in mind. But a VLE contains rapidly changing content from thousands of users. The sector as a whole is grappling with the implications of this.

We hope to develop our (externally hosted) CPD Moodle. As more people become aware of the platform, more courses are going on there. And we are working closely with CEG Digital, the University’s partners for expanding our DL offering. 

Questions around analytics and data have been of interest and, when we’ve had any spare time (hah!), we’ve tried to make progress in this area. We have liaised with a Business Analyst on the creation of a Student Engagement and Monitoring dashboard; locally, we have started to look at how to surface useful statistics on the Moodle dashboard. Watch for developments over the coming months! 

I could write much, much more about the team’s attainments – but I’ll leave it there.

We have encountered many setbacks and challenges – inevitably so, given the amount of change that has been implemented over such a short period of time – but the team, as part of the wider University, has achieved so much this year. We can leave the plague year behind us and enter 2021 knowing we have a bright future.

A one colour background with a computer in the front. On the computer are various brightly coloured graphs

Creating accessible documents – some tips

July 20, 2020 / / 0 Comments

In recent weeks, several members of staff have asked for some simple tips on accessibility of learning content. Well, for text-based material on Moodle, the best advice I can give authors is: look at the Ally report that appears next to your document – the report RAG rates your document against accessibility criteria and, where problems exist, states what they are and explains how to fix them. (Accessibility of video and audio content is something different, and will be the subject of a later post.)

If you are creating a document from scratch, however, it is best to avoid accessibility pitfalls rather than fix them later. Refer to creating accessible documents in the eLearning-tools site to find out what are the do’s and don’ts. We know what the commonest problems are at UoP: the Ally institutional report tells us! So, when writing, take note of the following five tips.

1. Ensure there is sufficient contrast between text and background

Text with poor contrast can be difficult for anyone to read, but it might be impossible to read for people with certain visual impairments. Putting red text on a green background, for example, is a really bad idea. Don’t do it! For more information, see the relevant part of the WCAG 2.1 AA guidelines.

2. Add a description to images and graphs

Adding a rich text description to images – often known as “alt text”, “alternative text” or “alternative descriptions” – improves comprehension for all students and is a requirement for students with visual impairments. (Adding alt text also helps students with poor network connections: text might be transmitted when images aren’t.) If you don’t know how to add alt text, check out the help in Ally.

3. If you use tables, give them headers

Tables can be a great way to organise complex information – but use them for data, not for visual layouts. And in order for students to best navigate a table, particularly if they are using a screen reader, add appropriate headers. Again, Ally provides guidance on how to do this. (If you have never used a screen reader before, try doing so on a Word document that contains a table. If that table is not properly structured, you will soon hear how confusing a table can be. In some cases, a screen reader can provide incorrect information because of the way a table has been set up.)

4. Use styles to structure your document 

Headings help all students to navigate and comprehend texts; headings are essential for screen readers. So when using Word, for example, use Word’s built-in styles for headings, sections, subsections and so on. If you don’t like how the style appears visually, change the formatting of the style. (If a piece of text has the “Normal” style applied, it doesn’t help to highlight the text and make it 20pt bold: it is still “Normal” text. If the text is a heading, apply a heading style rather than a direct visual format.)

5. Give your document a title

A PDF title is used as the document title for a PDF window or tab. A title makes it easier for a student to navigate to the PDF and to understand the purpose of the file. It is easy to fix the problem of a missing document title at the PDF level –  use Acrobat Pro. But the problem doesn’t arise if you add a document title in your word processor. (In Word, for example, select the Summary tab from File > Properties and then add a short, descriptive sentence in the Title field.) 

And that’s it! If you follow these tips, your document will be more accessible than the majority of documents on our Moodle (or on the VLEs of most other institutions – these are the commonest accessibility errors people make). 

Image Credit: Image by 200 Degrees from Pixabay

Some comments on “The future of assessment”

February 17, 2020 / / 0 Comments

The Curriculum Framework Specification document, which provides detailed precepts and guidance for the design, development and review of all new courses at the University, contains UoP’s policy on assessment. The policy’s authors made a conscious choice to call it an Assessment For Learning Policy: the policy advocates assessment for learning rather than assessment of learning. As the policy states, assessment for learning enables a culture in which: 

  • students receive feedback from academics and peers that helps them to improve their work prior to final/summative assessments; 
  • students understand what successful work looks like for each task they are doing; 
  • students become more independent in their learning, taking part in peer and self-assessment; 
  • formative assessment is, where possible, aligned to the module summative assessment, in order to facilitate cyclical feedback opportunities which will clarify expectations and standards for the summative assignment (e.g. the student’s exam or portfolio submission).

As the University considers how to implement its new five-year strategy, however, and how to meet its ambitious vision for 2030, might we need to rethink assessment? Not rethink the approach of assessing for learning, but look again at some of the details of how we assess?

The changing nature of assessment over the coming five-year period happens to be the subject of a recent publication from JISC: The Future of Assessment: Five Principles, Five Targets for 2025. This report, the output of a day-long meeting held in 2019, identifies five key aspects of assessment and the role that technology can play. The report argues that assessment should be (in alphabetical order, not order of importance):

  • Accessible – taking an inclusive approach to assessment is the ethical thing to do, of course, but we now have a legal requirement to meet certain accessibility standards. Digital technology can certainly help with accessibility. Contact DCQE if you would like further advice in this area. 
  • Appropriately automated – it hardly needs to be said that marking and feedback, although crucial elements of the assessment process, is time consuming. Technology can help here, too. Technology can be used to automate the process and, if the assessment has been properly designed, students get the benefit of immediate feedback. Technology might also be used to improve the quality of feedback: in this regard TEL is currently exploring the Edword platform.   
  • Authentic – this is, I believe, a key area for the University to develop. How does it benefit students to make them sit down for three hours and hand write an essay under exam conditions? This doesn’t prepare them for the world beyond university. Surely it’s better to assess students’ ability to work in teams; display their knowledge in a realistic setting; use the digital skills they will undoubtedly need in the workplace?  
  • Continuous – in order to be successful in their chosen careers, our students will need to keep up with changes wrought by technology. So perhaps the most important skill we can teach our students is how to be independent, self-directed learners. An over-reliance on high-stakes, summative exams does not help. Of particular interest to me, in the JISC report, was the mention of using AI to personalise learning and assessment: the technology is not there yet, but it might come in the next few years. 
  • Secure – if we are going to assess a student then we need to know we are assessing the right student! For a long time the focus in HE has been on detecting and deterring plagiarism. Nowadays, though, we also face the threat of essay mills and contract cheating. Once again technology can play a role: data forensics, stylistic analysis tools and online proctoring platforms can help tackle the problem. Such tools are best used, however, in a culture that promotes academic integrity: we should use technology to help promote a sense of academic community rather than to “catch the bad guys”.

The five principles identified by the JISC working group seem to me to be realistic and practical. They are also, if I’m being honest, slightly unambitious. I think mixed-reality technology, for example, opens up many opportunities to develop assessment for learning. But perhaps that is more for a 2030 vision than a 2025 strategy.   

Credit Image: Needpix.com

Gentleman stand on a blue flooring with a VR headset on

AR/VR in Education

October 14, 2019 / / 1 Comment

In July 2019 I attended the TED Global Conference in Edinburgh. One of the most exciting talks at the conference included a live demonstration of volumetric video – a technological development that will surely change the nature of cinematic storytelling, sports viewing, and much else besides. The technology also has huge potential in education: one can imagine using it for field trips and virtual lectures. That educational potential, however, is unlikely to be realised in the short-to-medium term: most universities don’t have the skills, equipment or financial resources to build these immersive environments. But what universities can do – and increasingly are doing – is to investigate the educational potential of established augmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) technology.

In early September 2019 the ALT mailing list was bombarded with “me too” responses to a post explaining how pockets of interest in AR/VR were spread across a particular institution and that it would be good to be able to somehow share that practice. UoP represents one of those “me too” responses. We know of people across the University who are exploring the potential of AR/VR for learning and for skills development. It would be great if we could bring those pockets of expertise together, in order to share tips and tricks and experience. In the first instance, a group of us from TEL and Sports Science have met to discuss this – and we hope to develop a definite proposal for how this might work over the next few weeks. Watch out for news of this. In the meantime, if you have an interest in the educational aspects of AR/VR (or volumetric video) – please drop us a line. 

Image Credit: Photo by Martin Sanchez on Unsplash

Image of Goddess Minerva

Minerva – the university rethought?

August 12, 2019 / / 0 Comments

On 25 June I attended an Adobe/Times Higher forum called “Making digital literacy a pillar of education”, along with representatives from 40 or so other HE institutions.

There was no disagreement at the forum about the recent recommendation from the DCMS Select Committee that digital literacy should sit alongside the “3R’s” as a fourth pillar of education. Everyone agreed that, as the pace of technological change quickens, employers are less interested in a student’s knowledge than in their personal qualities – and in particular their ability to engage in lifelong learning. But there was no consensus on how universities can best prepare their students for life in a world in which digital technology will play an increasingly important role.

Of the institutions present at the forum, undoubtedly the most innovative approach to Education 4.0  was that adopted by the Minerva Schools. Minerva built a first-year undergraduate curriculum from scratch, but rather than base the curriculum on subject-specific knowledge they built it around 81 “habits of mind” and “foundational concepts”. Students engage in cross-contextual learning activities in small-seminar format, all of which require or exercise the use of those foundational concepts. Through these activities students pick up subject knowledge, but they are assessed on how well they satisfy the foundational concepts. 

In the first year of study the Minerva School’s students are based in San Francisco. Subsequently they spend time in Seoul, Berlin, London, Hyderabad, Bangladesh, Buenos Aires and Taipei. Sounds terrific! (And expensive…) And all of this is made possible using digital technology – it’s a fundamental enabling technology for Minerva.

Minerva Schools were able to take this approach because they were small, well resourced – and also because they were starting from scratch. It would be a huge task (probably an impossible task) for an existing university with thousands of students to change its curriculum in this way. But there might be elements of the approach that universities can adopt. It’s interesting that the Minerva project have recently opened its bespoke educational technology platform, called Forum, to partners: they claim that the platform, which was designed for use in a small-seminar format, can scale to support up to 400 students. It will be worth keeping an eye on this development. 

Image Credit: Commons Wikimedia: The Greek Goddess Minerva

« Older posts

About This Site

We are a talented bunch of individuals that specialise in providing support, development and design to staff around the University. We help to support staff in using technology to enhance their students' learning. Follow our blog to see what the TEL team are doing!

University of Portsmouth

A grey background with the University of Portsmouth written in white capitals
Accessibility Statement

© 2024 Tel Tales

Theme by Anders Norén — Up ↑