Archive

Archive for the ‘Curriculum Design’ Category

Moodle 2: How file management will work

December 10, 2012 Leave a comment

As posted in Educational Vignettes  Moodle 2 is coming to City University London for academic year 2013-14 and one of the changes it brings is in file management. This post looks at the improvements in file management with Moodle 2 and is the first in a series of posts on how the investment in educational technologies will provide you with opportunities to enhance your teaching practice and support student learning

One of the most significant differences between Moodle 1.9 and Moodle 2 is the way in which files are managed. From feedback collected, improved content management was identified as a priority for staff using Moodle at City University London and Moodle, it seems, has delivered with Moodle 2.0.

opening-files

The internal file manager within Moodle 2, called the File Picker, offers two key improvements in the handling of files:

  1. Quicker and easier method for organising resources through the use of a simple drag and drop interface, where academics will be able to drag and drop files directly onto their module homepage or into the File Picker. Currently, you need to browse to upload your file, so the drag and drop will save clicking and time. For more information about how to drag and drop works in Moodle 2 have a look at this video. Students will also have option of dragging and dropping files from their computer into a Moodle 2 assignment; reducing the amount of clicks involved when submitting an assignment.
  2. More effective ways of managing/storing files, which offers better flexibility in accessing and linking to files across modules. This allows for linked files to be automatically updated with any changes to the master file, ensuring that important information for students is always kept up-to-date.

The progress so far

After a review of external file management solutions, the Repository Working Group (whose membership includes Educational Technologists from each School and the Learning Development Centre) recommended the use of the internal file manager within Moodle 2. The Repository Working Group is currently investigating areas where improvements can be made to the File Picker to further improve the workflow when adding files and also exploring the additional opportunities offered through accessing other internal and external repositories.

We will be providing you with regular updates on how you can enhance your teaching practice and support your student learning through the Strategic Learning Environment (SLE) projects, so watch this space.

Talking MOOCs

November 28, 2012 Leave a comment

Recently interest in MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) has moved from the learning technology community into the popular press. Some of the coverage has been almost apocalyptic in tone.

http://cogdogblog.com/2012/07/17/mooc-hysertia/

This post, the first of a series of three on this topic, aims to provide an introduction to MOOCs. The next two posts will cover (i) some of the pedagogic aspects and (ii) some of the business models which have been suggested as ways to exploit the MOOC phenomenon.

The overarching aim of this short series is to provide some resources on the MOOCs, to explore some questions about them and to invite some comments about their potential impact .

A list of current and recent MOOCs can be found here. A more detailed survey of the development of MOOCs thus far can be accessed on this link

What are MOOCS?  

The term MOOCs emerged in 2007.  One of the MOOC pioneers, George Siemens talks about the genesis and development of the MOOC on this video where Martin Weller interviews George Siemens and Dave Cormier (originator of the term MOOC).  Building on Connectivist principles developed by Stephen Downes, early MOOCs challenged universities’ traditional control over curriculum, certification, tuition fees and access.

A great paper by Sir John Daniel draws an important distinction between these early cMOOCs, which continue, and those which have been the focus of recent press attention, which he calls xMOOCs, such as those provided by Cousera, Udacity and edX (though there are significant differences between the pedagogic and economic models each of these seeks to develop). It is

  • the vast number of student enrolments,
  • considerable investment of venture capital,
  • global publishing conglomerate interest
  •  Ivy League and Russell Group University participation

in these xMOOCs which has grown media interest and led some to argue that, largely due to MOOCs, Higher Education is on the verge of a profound transformation (the-most-important-education-technology-in-200-years/, ) whilst others are more sceptical.

The next post will look in more detail at how both types of MOOC (C and X) work and some of the pedagogic models which underpin them. The final post will explore their viability as business models.

If you have any thoughts or comments on MOOCs, please share them below.

Video in Education – An invitation to our first webinar – 1pm on Thursday November 22nd, 2012

October 23, 2012 1 comment

Video in Education – a special interest group – invites you to grab a coffee and share best practice at our first webinar.

Formed in summer 2012, this group’s focus is on sharing practice within the schools, and gathering examples from other institutions, in: production and publishing of video for education; techniques for engaging staff in use of video for teaching and learning; and pedagogical principles behind video for education.

Sharing Best Practice in Educational Video at City University

Webinar – Thursday 22nd November 2012 –1pm  to 1.30pm

Webinar Room Link  (opens at 12.45pm on the day)

Event Details

  • Introduction –  Mo Pamplin
  • School of Law – Scenario-based learning video portfolios – Sophie Paluch
  • Cass Business School – Dubai MBA student research presentations – Luis Balseca
  • School of Health Science – Blood pressure self-assessment videos – Natasa Perovic

Moderators on the day, Stef Smith and Steve McCombe at the MILL

Instructions for participants:

There is no need to book a place, all City staff are welcome as are external guests.

Join the webinar room, via the link below and settle in from 12.45 pm, participants will be able to listen to the speakers, view a web cam of the speakers, watch clips from video projects and pose questions via the chat room.  We will use the Adobe Connect webinar service to host this session for up to 100 guests.

Webinar Room Link  (opens at 12.45pm on the day)

Its good to check your computer audio settings in advance, to find out more see the quick start guide.

Quick Start Guide – Participants

any enquiries, please contact the organisers via email:  video@city.ac.uk

The webinar will be recorded and made available on  this page after the event.

We look forward to meeting you on the 22nd,

Mo Pamplin

School of Arts and Social Science

space

Self- and Peer Assessment using Turnitin in SEMS: Cengiz Turkoglu

August 1, 2012 5 comments

Cengiz Turkoglu, a Senior Lecturer in the School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, principally teaches final-year undergraduate students and one of the MSc Aviation Management modules, with class sizes usually not exceeding 20 students. Each of his modules uses a similar assessment pattern comprising one coursework plus an examination. For the coursework component, he utilizes the self-review and peer review functions of Turnitin as part of the assessment.

The coursework has an initial deadline of a minimum of 6-8 weeks into the module to allow sufficient time for students to conduct research and write their essays. Once the students have submitted their paper, Turnitin’s PeerMark assignment function allows them to be either paired or randomly allocated another paper, which they are then required to peer-review. Given that there is always a range of standards represented by the students and their papers, one dilemma that Cengiz has faced concerns whether to pair the students randomly or to attempt to group them according to their standard. He never pairs them such that two students are asked to review one another’s papers.

The feedback provided by each student in peer review is subsequently made available to the original author – and the students are made aware at the time of writing that their comments will be released in this manner. At the same time, each author is asked to take a self-assessment exercise that follows exactly the same format as the peer review. As the process is conducted entirely online using Turnitin, it is completely paperless, which reduces the administrative workload and makes for a more sustainable structure.

For Cengiz, self- and peer review are only valuable if they lead somewhere in terms of the assessment process. With that in mind, once the feedback has been exchanged between students, Cengiz gives them a week to undertake further revisions to their original submission should they wish to do so. He asks that they do not rewrite their paper substantively, but confine themselves to minor amendments. Plagiarism of the peer-review feedback is not an issue because all the material is traceable and hence can be attributed. Only after the revised submission has been received does Cengiz mark the work summatively using GradeMark and provide his own feedback.

Detailed assessment criteria are provided, with the marking criteria broken down into six different categories each with their own weighting, of which one category is self- and peer review (worth 10% of the mark). The students are therefore aware from the outset that it is an integral part of the assessment, and its summative nature encourages them to engage fully with the process, since Cengiz’s experience is that students can be very assessment-driven. The questions they are asked for the self- and peer reviews correspond to the other assessment categories, so they judge each other’s paper, and their own, in exactly the same way as the examiner.

Cengiz has found this to be a very valuable exercise. It sets the students thinking about how to frame feedback, offering helpful advice to the author rather than simply giving praise or criticism. It also encourages them to consider issues such as whether the author understood the question and maintained focus, how well they researched the subject, and how coherent the arguments they presented were, based on their own reasoning or factual information they identified during their research. (The criteria matrix used by Cengiz is shown below; this is also entered as the rubric in Turnitin.) While students are variable in their engagement with the process, Cengiz notes that the best self-reviews and peer reviews recognize areas where the submission can be improved.

Turnitin screenshot - criteria matrix

Cengiz argues that the value of this assessment model is that it provides a simulation of real-life scenarios. In safety-critical industries such as aviation, for example, maintenance engineers are expected to inspect each others’ work on a regular basis, and the peer review process is widely used particularly by design engineers. In addition, all engineers should be expected to reflect upon, and to strive to improve, their own performance in order continually to develop themselves professionally. They may not necessarily always receive the most favourable advice from their own peers, so engineering students are prepared effectively for the profession through nurturing skills such as being able to evaluate the feedback they receive and to make their own judgement when taking decisions.

Cengiz justifies equalizing the weightings between the coursework and examination (originally weighted at 30% and 70% respectively) by citing the introduction of the requirements for self-assessment and peer review as a reason to give greater weighting to the coursework component. He strongly believes that examination is not the only suitable assessment method for his modules as the nature of the topics he teaches is such that they require understanding and the ability to apply this knowledge to real-life scenarios, rather than merely memorising content from text books or course notes. After studying on the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice programme delivered by the Learning Development Centre at City University London, Cengiz has become an advocate of self-directed and reflective learning, and he encourages his students to become more critically self-reflexive so that they can learn from their own experiences.

If you would like to know more about this assessment model, Cengiz is happy to be contacted by e-mail: cengiz.turkoglu.1@city.ac.uk.

Christopher Wiley and Cengiz Turkoglu

Use of the Personal Response System for Formative Assessment in Optometry: Dr Byki Huntjens and Dr Steve Gruppetta

With the recent founding of the University Personal Response System (PRS) Steering Group, co-chaired by Dr Siân Lindsay and Farzana Latif, this would seem to be an opportune time to profile one of the innovative approaches implemented within the University in using PRS technology for formative assessment.

Dr Byki Huntjens and Dr Steve Gruppetta are lecturers in the Division of Optometry and Visual Science who have introduced the PRS to undergraduate students in order that they may receive immediate classroom feedback during Clinical Skills and Optics lectures. A PRS handset is given to the students (against a small deposit) throughout their degree programme, and is registered to their name to enable responses to be matched to individuals. Each lecture features a succession of multiple choice questions (MCQ). Byki’s practice is to start later lectures with a set of MCQs covering the previous topic plus the background reading for the class, and test the students’ understanding of the new topic later on during the lecture. Steve includes material that potentially encompasses the previous lecture, the current lecture, or even paves the way for a new topic to be discussed. The end result is a series of technology-enabled formative assessments.

Although only the group scores are shown during lectures and the progress of individual students is not revealed, the results of the quizzes are uploaded to Moodle each week by topic and the students are thereby able to check their individual score. This enables them to track their progress over time, and doubles as a reminder of the topics to which they need to direct particular attention prior to the examinations. The Moodle grade book also shows the students’ ranking among the whole group, leading some of them to become slightly competitive. Indeed, the element of competition is actively nurtured – the top five students with the highest marks in the year are awarded a prize at the divisional Prize Giving event.

The students have shown excitement during the PRS quizzes and appreciate the immediacy of the feedback, the anonymity of the process, and the way that it articulates the lecture by providing an interlude. Steve has developed the practice of making the PRS quizzes, which he calls the ‘Optics Challenge’, distinct from the rest of the lecture by changing the background of the slide from white to black (see screenshot below). The students’ responses are also used by the tutors to adapt subsequent lectures to the level of understanding of the specific cohort; this has prompted a change of direction on several occasions. In addition, this information has enhanced the support that the tutors are able to offer when students have sought extra help.

The Optics Challenge Leaderboard

Byki delivered a presentation on the use of PRS technology for formative assessment at the Fourth Annual ‘Learning at City’ Conference on 13 June, 1.20-2.00pm (the video is available here).

Christopher Wiley, Byki Huntjens, and Steve Gruppetta
with thanks to Siân Lindsay and Farzana Latif

A Case Study of Interim Assessment in SEMS: Mary Aylmer

Mary Aylmer is a visiting lecturer in the School of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences (SEMS), teaching the CAD part of the module CV1407 IT skills, Communication, and CAD. She has developed an assessment pattern in which students produce five pieces of CAD coursework, each of which involves completing engineering drawings. There are two interim submissions each weighted at 2% of the final module mark, two larger submissions weighted at 16% and 40%, and an end-of-module test also weighted at 40%.

The 2% weighting for the interim submissions is intended to ensure that the students’ early work on the module is taken into account in the final module mark, which helps to focus them to the task. The exercises are carefully graded and enjoyable for the students to complete; they tend to take ownership of their own learning as the assessments are designed such that they are able to determine exactly what is required of them, so they can aspire to high marks.

SEMS CAD CV1407The obvious advantage of this assessment pattern is that it ensures that the students are definitely completing their initial work on the module. This means that they are well prepared for the larger submissions: they have already accrued plenty of experience of CAD in the first few weeks through the interim submissions, and are thereby placed in a strong position to tackle the difficult drawings. In other words, it ensures that they undertake the groundwork first.

The downside to this system for the tutor is that it generates a substantial amount of marking. Mary has also noted a tendency among students to query their marks, even in the case of the 2% submissions which are unlikely to have a significant impact on their overall degree average. It can become very time-consuming to justify marks deducted, particularly with 120 students each of whom submit 5 pieces of work.

Nonetheless, the outcomes speak for themselves. By the end of the module, the students can produce good CAD drawings fairly easily; and they have indicated through their feedback that they enjoy the course, which is very encouraging. While an assessment model such as this may be time-consuming for the tutor, it is evidently worth the investment if it results in robust learning and student satisfaction.

Christopher Wiley and Mary Aylmer

Using Debate as a Teaching Format

July 7, 2012 2 comments

Three years ago at a City University Creativity Workshop I met Kirsten Hardie who teaches Design at Arts University College of Bournemouth. She told me about a method she had invented called “On Trial.” By coincidence, in working with a group of City teachers recently, they quite unprompted suggested the use of a debate format as a method of increasing student engagement.

It was impressive how quickly they came up with a great number of creative ideas to widen the palette of teaching formats. The session focused on devising a learning activity that reflects often currently missing employability skills:

  • Critical thinking
  • Reflection
  • Persuasive communication
  • Self awareness

Devising fresh learning activities to promote employability skills

I took Chickering and Gamson’s 7 Principles for high engagement learning, as a benchmark.  We selected two of these: and participants were also encouraged to identify their own. The focus was on fresh learning activities; new ideas.  Here are some of the resulting creative learning outcomes from the participants.

Fresh  learning activities.

  • Reflection: in action and on action
  • Scenarios, role play and simulation
  • Debating
  • Combined learning with another school (interprofessional  learning)
  • A buddy system

The question is how can we enable great ideas like these to be put into practice? For example using debate in our teaching.

So returning to National Teaching Fellow Kirsten Hardie’s On Trial project that  explores the use of role play and debate in student centred learning. It promotes and facilitates creativity in and through learning. Students work with colleagues to explore and interrogate problematic issues relating to their specialism

“On Trial harnesses popular culture, and the seductive qualities of the courtroom, as experienced through television and film examples (both historical and contemporary), in a creative fashion to help students engage with tough academic issues and wider ethical concerns.”

In addition a fascinating article by Catherine Sanderson discusses and evaluates debate as an assessment and learning strategy to develop critical and reasoning skills and stimulate learning through assessment in first year Biomedical Science and Public Health Students.

Sanderson’s work with first year undergraduates indicates that although it may be tacitly understood that critical reasoning is an essential skill for all students, it is far too often left to the final year as a learning outcome or even reserved for post-graduate studies.

%d bloggers like this: