This paper details how early-capture survey data and continuous student feedback has informed practice within a social science department at the University of York. It will show how results from a survey of first year students at the very start of their degree course, loosely based on the ECAR studies in the US (Smith and Caruso 2010), have fed into departmental teaching strategy and provided a solid knowledge-base for academic staff to understand the way students engage with ICT and their expectations of how technology-enhanced learning should be included within degree programmes. This increase in understanding is hypothesised to be a contributory factor to the high buy-in from academic staff in the use of learning technologies within this department. Presented at ALT-C 2012.
1. Unravelling student expectations
The use of early data and student feedback
to inform implementation
ALT-C, University of Manchester, 11 September 2012
Matt Cornock
University of York
Complete presentation notes available at mattcornock.co.uk
This presentation outlines the approach taken in the Department of Social Policy and Social Work (SPSW) at the University of York to engage staff in technology-enhanced learning. The Department has a ‘baseline’ approach which requires every module to have a site on the VLE. Within this site are some required elements: module outline, announcements to communicate with students, reading list, lecture slides and assignment information with online submission point (students have to submit one paper copy to Department Reception and the digital file online). The Department is small, with approximately 40 teaching staff, 350 undergraduate students and 120 taught postgraduate campus-based students. The initial roll-out of the baseline was in 2010 and since then all staff have been trained in the minimum technical skills required to meet the baseline. A significant proportion of staff also use collaborative tools and an appreciation of online learning design to provide blended learning at varying levels of consequence for the module outcomes. The approach detailed in this paper is designed to help other Department coordinators think of how they can increase staff engagement with technology-enhanced learning. The underlying principle is the use of data to inform practice and obtain buy-in from staff. Eric Mazur (Keynote Speaker at ALT-C 2012) suggested that scientific study of the learning and teaching processes we use can help inform practice and improve our methods. Whilst Mazur’s approaches are academically rigorous, I am proposing here a more ‘quick and dirty’ approach with a fast turn around time so that a difference can be more immediately felt in the adoption of technologies for teaching and learning, and the supporting of both staff and students in their use.
The large scale national surveys like Horizon Reports, ECAR (Smith and Caruso 2010) and the recent HEFCE/NUS report on student perspectives (2010) all suggest that students are on average more confident with technology and have an expectation for technology to be used as part of their learning process. For a small Department, I want to be able to support the individual differences of the small cohorts. Much of our teaching is in small groups also, therefore there is a greater impact on the whole of individual students’ experiences and preferences towards learning technologies. As such, we cannot depend on these national trends to reflect the unique make-up of our teaching groups. For example, we cannot assume that all students have access to smart phones, confidently use MS Office products, desire to use Facebook for teaching and learning or even know what to do with books. Having a better understanding of our individual learners informs the approaches we take, not by limiting us, but by highlighting where supporting training and guidance needs to be provided.
The results here come from my Learning Technologies Survey of all first year undergraduate and first year MA Social Work students. This survey is conducted during a VLE induction session in the first week of the academic year and helps provide information to do with device ownership, experience of TEL in school and confidence with IT. The results showed that roughly a third lacked confidence in using MS Office, in particular Word and more so (40-45%) with PowerPoint. As a good grasp of Word is useful for essay writing (our main form of assessment) and PowerPoint the centrally-provided presentation programme (students are required to do presentations regularly throughout their degree), this survey flagged up a particular skills shortage we were able to address with additional training provision. Word mini-tutorials delivered through screencasting software provided guidance for formatting assignments and a PowerPoint training session was provided. Interestingly, a large proportion of students were keen to create an online presence via blogging, something that was not taught last year but can now be delivered to students through the creation of a workshop over the summer. Worryingly (as it goes against some of our ill-informed assumptions about ‘tech-savvy’ students), a third were also wanting training on online identity management, presumably because of the increased awareness over privacy concerns and the social/professional balance on social networking sites. Again, a workshop has been devised to address these skills gaps. Whilst these skills are not explicitly linked to academic study, by supporting students in developing these skills and becoming confident with the technology, technology becomes one less barrier to overcome both for their study and future career prospects.
As an example of just one quality agenda, this case study uses a different mix of information to inform practice on a more iterative and longer-term project. The University has developed an institutional road map of how students should be welcomed to the institution and introduced to their studies (this policy developed from work done by pioneering Departments in Welcome Sites). SPSW was an early adopter and a little ahead of the institutional expectations, but our prior work put us in good stead to provide a quality ‘transition’ for our students into the University. Our initial designs were informed by student focus groups, but each year student feedback is collected to ensure that the Welcome Sites remain current to students needs and adapt to different provisions centrally which negate the need to duplicate the information at a Department level. These sites also included blog spaces to allow new students to talk to each other, current students and staff. This itself provided evidence about how students interact on blogs, evidence produced at a Departmental level which could be used as an example of practice to inform staff thinking of including such approaches in their modules. Find out more about the conclusions drawn from interactions on these blogs here: http://www.mattcornock.co.uk/reports/four-types-of-students-posts-in-introductory-online-activities . A second key development point was that around the use of video, with anecdotal evidence suggesting students appreciate seeing and hearing Department staff pre-arrival. As such, our sites now include a number of videos to complement the text-based information available.
A second learning point from the Learning Technologies Survey was that of student’s receptiveness to the use of Facebook for teaching and learning purposes. The chart above clearly shows ambivalence, with only a third of students in favour. Of note is the way this result is pretty consistent even if the students didn’t come straight from school into their degree (about 15-20% of our students are ‘non-school leavers’). For information also, though almost all school-leavers used Facebook (97%), 90% of their non-school leaver counterparts also did. Suggesting that regardless of whether students used Facebook socially or not, they were still less likely to be comfortable with its use in an academic context. This information proved particularly useful when a learning activity was designed with Facebook in mind as the platform (albeit for different cohorts). Knowing that there may be apprehension over the use of Facebook allowed us to design in additional support, opt-out activities, and clear guidance as to the role of Facebook for the activity.
This slide just shows a sample of the guidance provided to support the Facebook activity (Wenham and Cornock 2012). The activity guide places particular emphasis on the rationale of using Facebook as well as the ‘terms of engagement’ to be relaxed and informal. A YouTube video was also recorded to provide detailed support on controlling Facebook’s complicated privacy settings. This video and supporting documentation can be found here: http://www.mattcornock.co.uk/guides/controlling-your-online-identity
The figure here is a summary of the different points that Departmental TEL coordinators could intervene and obtain information. Covered in this presentation are the first two blocks, but Module Feedback is also an essential tool for TEL coordinators. Every module feedback form in the Department has a question which allows students to comment specifically on the use of the VLE. This helps highlight inconsistencies (a key quality improvement area) and examples of good practice that can be shared with other staff, potentially increasing buy-in.
Pulling together all the threads of the approach taken in SPSW, this model is its representation. At the base, the stakeholders (apologies for the business-lingo): students, staff and the institution. Each drivers, providing input and information. Then a level of ‘quick and dirty’ information gathering processes, plus ‘Innovation’ that comes from students (usually student representatives) and staff with teaching ideas. Thus, this base level is comprised of processes which facilitate proactive, reactive and ad hoc information gathering. These then feed into a Department Strategy (something which we are institutionally encouraged to produce, and acts as a useful steering mechanism for the Department overall – reviewed and reflected upon annually) and the learning designs of individual modules. The final step is implementation, reflecting upon students expectations and experience with TEL in particular and how we may support it. These stages are driven through proactively, either by the Department coordinator or by the module staff themselves.
The final step though is to ensure proactive feeding back, disseminating the implementation to students, staff and institution to showcase the use of TEL with the intention of increasing buy-in from staff. There was much discussion in the sessions I attended on the first day at ALT-C which disregarded staff who weren’t willing to embrace technology (those referred to as laggards). For me, this process of toe-dipping, informed by simple evidence, trialling and learning from experience encourages staff to make more informed decisions about the role of TEL in their courses. At the end of the day, as TEL coordinators, we are not looking for ubiquitous adoption of TEL in all modules, but a balance across the curriculum which draws on TEL strengths only where it is shown to improve the student learning experience. However, without offering opportunities to provoke and encourage staff, we run the risk of only supporting those that wish to push on with TEL, leaving an ever increasing chasm between those that do and those that don’t.
The final slide just summarises the approach again and the key benefits to small Departments.
