Roadmap towards Technology Enhanced Learning … · Roadmap towards Technology Enhanced Learning ... The main document outlines some of the underlying principles of a blended learning

ULTSEC 2-3-2016 D Appendix I

Roadmap towards Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) 2020

Executive Summary

This document sets out seven key objectives which eLearning and Student Information Committee (eLSI) believe should be met if the University is to be able to offer a world class environment which makes full use of technology to support learning and teaching.

The main document outlines some of the underlying principles of a blended learning approach, details the consultative process that has been undertaken and discusses in detail the implementation strategy for each of the key objectives. In this Executive Summary we present some underpinning assumptions and then list the seven key objectives and indicate the requirements for their implementation.

Underpinning assumptions

1. The Roadmap is focused on the delivery of undergraduate programmes to those students in attendance at Newcastle University or its branch campuses.

2. Teaching delivery will remain ‘blended’ with a variety of methods being used to facilitate student learning.

3. The role of technology in teaching and learning will increase. 4. We will continue to support core technologies that currently support learning (VLEs, ReCap,

ePortfolio etc) 5. We will not be able to provide sufficient ‘cluster based’ computer access to allow us to

deliver all the technology enhanced learning that is envisaged and therefore a number of solutions will rely on students providing their own internet enabled devices (laptop, tablet, Phone).

6. The biggest barrier to increased use of Technology Enhanced Learning is lack of academic staff time and expertise.

The Seven Objectives

Key Objectives Implementation requirements 1. Establish an infrastructure that will support

staff in the development of online resources Employment of e-learning developers to work alongside staff to develop resources

2. Enable the electronic submission and marking of all appropriate student assignments

Identification, purchase and implementation of a software system to support electronic submission and marking that will work across a range of devices and which aligns with the University marking policy

3. Provide the technology to allow enhanced teacher/learner interactivity in all learning spaces

Identification, purchase and implementation of software solutions which will allow students to use their own devices to interact in a range of learning environments

4. Make online summative assessment possible for a wide range of assessment types and in non-cluster environments

Identify solutions (software and hardware) which will allow online assessments to be run in locations outside computer clusters.


Page 2 of 31

5. Provide an improved, consistent user experience in which systems are integrated seamlessly

Develop an improved user interface for students and staff (e.g. student dashboard which provides ‘one-stop’ access to all university learning resources

6. Develop improved data analytics to allow data concerning student interactions with IT systems to be used to improve the learning experience

NUIT and LTDS to expose existing data to facilitate analysis / reporting that will inform TEL development and service enhancements.

7. Provide specialist support services to facilitate user engagement with technology enhanced learning

Employment of a number of e-learning advisors to support staff in academic units in the use of technology advanced learning

Enabling Opportunities During the timeframe covered by this roadmap we anticipated there will two key activities that will be informed by the key objectives and will present significant opportunities to enable the delivery of the objectives.

1. ReCap – Review and re-tender at the end of the current contract with Panopto 2. Strategic review of VLE and eLearning Platforms


Page 3 of 31


Background Following the presentation of the eLSI document at UTLSEC on 18th March 2015 which outlined our intention to produce a roadmap for the next 2-5 years in terms of technology enhanced learning within Newcastle University, we were encouraged to proceed with the preparation of a document to be presented back to ULTSEC in early 2016.

There are three main areas that such a roadmap could focus on. These are not mutually exclusive but may be separated by the technologies that underpin them. The areas can be classified as:-

• Learning and teaching • Assessment and Feedback • Student interaction and communication

Following extensive consultations as outlined in this document (and summarised in Appendix 1) we have identified seven key areas of activity which we believe will significantly enhance staff and students satisfaction with the learning experience. These are detailed at the end of this report.

Learning and teaching – a blended approach? Increasingly students will be coming to University with expectations that information can be accessed through electronic media and online. If we want to meet those expectations and to be able to attract students into a learning environment that meets their needs then we will need to enhance our provision in this area. The risk of not being proactive is that we fall behind our Russell Group rivals, many of whom are investing heavily in TEL, and become a less attractive student destination. It was clear from the discussion at ULTSEC that there is a central steer towards a more blended learning approach within the University. This document aims to clarify what might be meant by blended learning and defines some of the issues that will need to be considered in planning a roadmap towards its delivery.

What is blended learning? There are many definitions of blended learning and some of the literature even questions the usefulness of the term. The following table outlines a typical view of the types of course that can be offered.


Page 4 of 31

Table 1. Amount of online content in various types of course

https://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/is-blended-learning-the-best-of-both-worlds/ (Accessed 20/3/15)

Generally blended learning is taken to mean an approach in which there is a move from face-to face didactic approaches for the delivery of course material to the use of alternative media and methods to facilitate student learning. Traditionally this term has been used to indicate a course in which online delivery replaces a proportion of classroom teaching and in which the student/teacher interaction is designed to engage the students at the higher levels of Bloom’s taxonomy.

Fig 1. Blooms taxonomy

https://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/is-blended-learning-the-best-of-both-worlds/

https://onlinelearninginsights.wordpress.com/2013/01/17/is-blended-learning-the-best-of-both-worlds/

https://onlinelearninginsights.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/screen-shot-2013-01-15-at-9-50-00-pm1.png


Page 5 of 31

However there are multiple pedagogical methodologies that could be incorporated into a blended learning model and we should be clear that doing ‘blended learning’ does not mean just putting more material online for students to access. Rather it requires teachers to understanding basic educational principles and to act as a facilitatory bridge between students and educational content, however this may be delivered.

In Appendix 2 of this document we present an extensive list of areas of activity in which technology may be used to enhance learning and outline the underpinning technologies. Some of the technologies in this list are already well established in the University, others are nascent or do not currently exist in a scaleable form.

It is clear from the literature that there is no ‘one size fits all’ for blended learning and that different courses may well adopt different approaches. It is the intention of the eLSI group that we should identify the resources that would be needed to help the University to position itself so as to be able to support a variety of pedagogical approaches for campus based undergraduate education which may include courses having anywhere from 1% to 80% of material delivered online.


Page 6 of 31

Staff Engagement An eLSI workshop on 26th May looked at the anticipated benefits of existing technologies for students, staff and the University and at the barriers to the achievement of those benefits. It was clear that one of the key barriers to any sort of increase in the utilisation of technology or in a change of teaching approach was the difficulty of achieving staff buy-in and emphasised the importance of training in producing culture change.

Over the summer of 2015 we ran a series of workshops encouraging staff to look forward and to identify areas where technology could enhance the learning and teaching experience. A summary of the key themes emerging from these workshops is presented as Appendix 1. The clear messages that emerged from these workshops were:-

1. We don’t need significant new technologies but need to refine and make better use of the technologies we have

2. There should be better integration between the various IT systems which support learning, teaching and the student experience

3. Staff need time, training and support in order to enable them to make optimal use of the technologies that we have.

This latter point links to the literature which clearly recognises that one of the major requirements of a move towards blended learning lies in changing the skills and attitude of academic staff. The introduction of new methodologies requires both upskilling of existing staff and an expectation that they will have time to devote to implementation. It will be important to recognise this and to ensure that the appropriate human resource is in place to support and facilitate any new approaches.

Some of the human aspects that may prevent effective use of TEL are:-

1. Lack of staff time to engage with new approaches. In a REF driven environment those staff for whom teaching is a secondary role do not have time to devote to the additional preparation time that may be needed to implement new technological approaches. This may be as simple as not having time to produce a Turning point interactive version of their lecture to not having time to prepare materials in advance for a ‘flipped’ approach.

2. Lack of staff expertise. Many staff who are not regular teachers and who may not use even the simplest of TEL e.g. blackboard more than once a year do not have sufficient knowledge of the capabilities of TEL to even think about using it effectively.

3. Lack of qualified learning technologists to support staff. There are not enough technologically competent individuals to be able to advise teaching staff individually about TEL and then to facilitate its use in their teaching sessions. Centrally run training sessions may be useful for some but there are a small subset of staff who will engage with and benefit from this training.

4. Lack of communication routes to reach teaching staff in a timely fashion. Blanket e-mails and postings on the LTDS home pages will not engage individual staff members with TEL. It is only by changing the local culture with the possible identification of champions in each subject area that dissemination of good TEL practice will occur.


Page 7 of 31

The Roadmap In response to the consultation seven areas have been identified as crucial to the improved delivery of technology enhanced learning by 2020. Each of these areas is presented below. This assumes that other areas of technology which currently support learning will continue to be supported and developed in line with advances in software and hardware. This would include lecture capture, VLEs, e-portfolio, on-line assessment and feedback (exams) and the University App.

ReCap and VLE Projects In particular we will need to ensure that when we re-tender for the ReCap system (due for tender in 2017) and review the VLE and eLearning Platforms (VLE tender due 2018) that the tender specifications allow these systems to enable and support the main objectives listed here. Details of these activities are outlined in Appendix 3.

Key Objectives

Objective 1: Establish an infrastructure that will support staff in the development of online resources

Why would the technology be of benefit and to whom? The ability to produce online resources to support student learning would be of benefit to staff and students. It would enable students to access to access quality resources in advance of a teaching session and to revisit these resources at a later date. It would enable staff to maximise their contact time by not having to deliver information in a didactic fashion but to use this time to encourage students to learn to apply that information under staff guidance. Does the technology currently exist and is it fit for purpose?

There are a number of software packages available that support the development of online learning resources (e.g. …..). Within the University different individuals use different learning platforms and it may be of benefit to decide on a common platform that can be more widely licensed. Are there newer versions of the existing technology in which we need to invest?

Software in this area will be developing over time and we will need to ensure that we are able to update the packages that we use. However the currently available software is sufficient to deliver the resources we need. Do we need to invest in new technologies?

No. Do we have appropriate infrastructure to enable us to adopt the technology?

Yes. It would be possible to make online resources available via our current VLEs


Page 8 of 31

What human resource will be needed to implement the technology?

A small amount of technical resource may be needed to make any software available across the wider campus’s IT networks. What human resource will be needed to train staff in the use of the technology?

A significant human resource would be needed in order to support staff in utilising the software to design and create online resources. This would include a number of e-learning technologists who would work alongside staff enabling them to produce resources. This is not just a matter of buying the software and then expecting that staff would get on with resource production. The University would need to establish a core of expertise which would be available to all staff. It is generally accepted that the creation of good online resources takes a significant time investment in terms of both staff and e-learning technologist and so we would need to carefully scope the capacity of the new unit in its early operations. What resource is needed to persuade staff to adopt the new technology?

The creation and use of online resources represents a fundamental shift in teaching approach with which many staff may be reluctant to engage. We would need one full time member of LTDS to work across the University and demonstrate to staff the potential benefits of a switch in approach and to identify and facilitate early adopters. What is a realistic timeframe for the technology to be in place?

The technology (software) could be in place within 1 year following approval of the proposal and a decision being made about the software to be adopted and it would be possible to recruit an e-learning team over that same period. Identification of early adopters may take place in that year and the first resources would be delivered about six months later. Thus from agreement to delivery would take a minimum of two years and up to five years for wider adoption and consolidation into University teaching practice.

What would be the anticipated costs of this development? Software investment ??? Technical support ???? Pedagogic support ?????


Page 9 of 31

Objective 2:- Enable the electronic submission and marking of all appropriate student assignments

Why would the technology be of benefit and to whom? Poor feedback on written assignments is one of the major areas of student dissatisfaction and is apparent in the consistently low scores concerning feedback in the NSS. The ability for students to submit work online and receive back specific feedback and annotated scripts online would be of benefit. In addition the use of comment banks and the ability to mark using portable devices should facilitate the marking process for many staff members. Does the technology currently exist and is it fit for purpose?

We currently use Grademark within the Turnitin suite of offerings. This is not currently fit for purpose as there are limitations with file handling that mean that blind double marking (an aspect of University assessment policy) is not possible. There are also some limitations on the nature of files which can be handled within the system. Are there newer versions of the existing technology in which we need to invest?

Currently there are very few alternative solutions to Grademark available and it would seem that our best option may be to work with Turnitin to drive the improvements in software that would be required by UK HEIs. We currently pay a significant sum (£????p.a.) to Turnitin for use of the plagiarism checking software and although new systems are being developed it may not be necessary to start again with a new product if improvements are forthcoming. Do we need to invest in new technologies?

We will need to upgrade our current system and this will carry a financial implication. It may be worth using a consultancy service to enable us to identify other solutions in use across the sector and to advise us as to the optimal solution. Do we have appropriate infrastructure to enable us to adopt the technology?

Yes. What human resource will be needed to implement the technology?

There will need to be input from the assessment teams in the Schools and Faculties to manage the system in terms of setting up assignments, assigning staff markers, distributing access information to staff, collating marks and inputting these to NESS or SAP (depending on which student management system individual school’s use). What human resource will be needed to train staff in the use of the technology?

One of the features of a new technology and a determinant of whether it is adopted should be that for staff it is intuitive to use. However there will need to be a training programme offered although it may be possible to do this as a cascade process through Faculties to Schools and to their individual assessment teams. Instructions to staff marking would then accompany the allocation of scripts and should be straightforward enough that point of use technical support will not be needed.


Page 10 of 31

What resource is needed to persuade staff to adopt the new technology?

The use of online submission and marking will need to be embedded in University policy. Schools would be required to use the online submission and marking system and staff would be expected to comply with the policy. Many other Universities are well ahead of Newcastle in the adoption of this approach to marking and feedback. What is a realistic timeframe for the technology to be in place?

The developments in software and systems that Turnitin would need to introduce are not yet in place and so we would anticipate that it may be at least three years before a system is developed, tested and implemented across the University. What would be the anticipated costs of this development? Consultancy ??? Software investment ??? Technical support ???? Pedagogic support ?????

Objective 3:- Provide the technology to allow enhanced teacher/learner interactivity in all learning spaces

Why would the technology be of benefit and to whom? Interactivity within the classroom is a key to student engagement and to blended learning approaches. If face-to-face sessions are primarily used for enabling students to apply the knowledge gained elsewhere and in assisted problem solving then the ability to sample student feedback live is essential. There are two elements which may need to be developed to allow this to happen. The first is a flexible student response system which is available to all teachers in all locations. The second is a method to promote online peer-to-peer and peer-to-teacher discussions to supplement face to face learning encounters. Does the technology currently exist and is it fit for purpose?

For student response systems we currently use Turning Point which primarily depends on the distribution of individual response devices to all participants in the class. This requires hardware investment and support in the management of the distribution of devices to students in specific classes. Other systems do exist and we currently have a task and finish group which is exploring the range of available options to determine which offers us the greatest flexibility going forward. An underpinning assumption is that we will move away from hardware driven solutions (‘clickers’) to internet based solutions where students can use their own devices to respond. For online interactivity we have some ability to run asynchronous online discussion groups in Blackboard but do not currently have an agreed University wide solution for online synchronous discussions.


Page 11 of 31

Are there newer versions of the existing technology in which we need to invest?

Yes there are new generation response devices– but software/internet based solutions may be less expensive than a solution requiring the purchase and maintenance of response devices. There are a multiplicity of online classroom solutions including an add-in for Blackboard. However these ned to be evaluated to determine their utility for larger groups. Do we need to invest in new technologies?

Yes. Do we have appropriate infrastructure to enable us to adopt the technology?

Yes. The roll out of WiFi across the campus should enable access to internet based systems in all teaching spaces. If not then further development of the campus WiFi infrastructure will be needed. What human resource will be needed to implement the technology?

If this is a software based solution then we will need support from NUIT to install the software and make it available for staff and students. Once the software is installed it should not require further technical support except for installation of occasional upgrades. What human resource will be needed to train staff in the use of the technology?

A significant amount of resource will be needed to provide training to staff in the use of the new response system technology unless the software is intuitive. Staff will require support to convert existing Turning point slides into presentations appropriate for the new software and in managing the session once in the classroom. Staff will also need training in the use of online classrooms both in terms of the mechanics of use as well as exploring the optimal pedagogic approaches. In addition support will be needed to help staff adjust to new pedagogic approaches in which interactivity is a key element. What resource is needed to persuade staff to adopt the new technology?

Training resources form the central support services. Local champions who can assist staff in using the new technology. What is a realistic timeframe for the technology to be in place?

The identification of a new solution may take a year if appropriate evaluation is to be undertaken. There will then need to be a process of installation and of training for support staff and academic staff. Therefore the earliest date to have a new system in place across the campus would be 2017 although early adopters and champions may be recruited before this.



Page 12 of 31

Objective 4:- Make online summative assessment possible for a wide range of assessment types and in non-cluster environments

Why would the technology be of benefit and to whom? Online assessment can cover a range of assessment types and should be capable of extending exam delivery beyond the MCQ type papers that are currently the mainstay of what is delivered. The use of online systems for all types of assessment offers efficiencies for Schools and Faculties in terms of managing examinations and handling exam papers and for students in terms of allowing typed rather handwritten answers to be submitted. Does the technology currently exist and is it fit for purpose?

Newcastle has already developed a significant capacity to deliver cluster based online assessments. The current systems are limited by the availability of cluster spaces at traditional examination times and by the type of questions that can currently be delivered. As yet there is no system that can deliver online assessment, across a range of assessment types, for all students, although the individual elements of the technology are already in existence. As we move towards all students being able to complete exams using computers then some major strategic decisions need to be made. It is clear that we are unlikely ever to have enough capacity in our fixed cluster stock to be able to run all the examinations that are required during exam periods. Therefore we will either have to purchase additional devices for use in other venues or allow students to bring their own devices to these venues. This then means that we will need to develop or purchase sophisticated software solutions that allow lockdown of devices when needed and that will ensure delivery of completed answers to the appropriate exam administrators. Are there newer versions of the existing technology in which we need to invest?

It is envisaged that this strand of activity would need to begin with a scoping exercise of what we currently have, what systems are currently in use elsewhere and what we would ned to do to develop our capability in this area. No off the shelf products currently exist but this is likely to be an area where rapid changes are seen across the sector and we need to be seen at the forefront of this. This may mean investment in software development to deliver what is required within the constraints of our existing IT infrastructure. Do we need to invest in new technologies?

New technology would not necessarily be needed, although depending on the solutions arrived at we may need to invest in hardware for use in exam situations. Do we have appropriate infrastructure to enable us to adopt the technology?

Yes. The roll out of WiFi across the campus should enable access to internet based systems in all likely on-campus examination venues. If not then further development of the campus WiFi infrastructure will be needed. If we use off-campus venues for assessment we will also need to make sure that these are Wi-Fi enabled.


Page 13 of 31


There will be a significant resource required to complete the following tasks 1. Identify possible solutions and pilot these in some examinations 2. Install software solutions across the campus and put in place management solutions to

handle examination data 3. Train and support academic and administrative staff in the use of the new online

assessment systems and encourage staff to rethink the nature of assessments 4. Engage with students about the new systems and obtain student buy-in

What human resource will be needed to train staff in the use of the technology?

A significant amount of resource will be needed to provide training to staff in the use of the new technology. In addition support may be needed to help staff adjust to new assessment approaches. What resource is needed to persuade staff to adopt the new technology?

Training resources form the central support services. Local champions who can assist staff in using the new technology. Educationalists who can help staff to think about the function of assessment and to take the opportunity of new delivery methods to reconsider the value of their existing assessment methodologies. What is a realistic timeframe for the technology to be in place?

This will be a long process and because of the current embryonic state of software and hardware solutions across the sector it may be that within a 3-5 year timescale that we have only begun to evaluate systems and to pilot some solutions. It is unlikely that a significant proportion of assessments across the University will be delivered online by 2020.



Page 14 of 31

Objective 5:- Provide an improved, consistent user experience in which systems are integrated seamlessly

Why would the technology be of benefit and to whom? One of the most common complaints from staff and students is that our systems are not sufficiently easy to use or intuitive. Each system has its own user interface (UI) and many are not sufficiently usable on mobile devices. The user experience (UX) is fragmented and inconsistent. A well designed, consistently applied user interface (UI) fully usable on any device would improve productivity and save time for all users and simultaneously improve the perception of the systems. This approach would also deliver benefits in terms of improved accessibility as a consistent interface would have accessibility controls designed in. Does the technology currently exist and is it fit for purpose?

Many of the key technologies are in place or in testing e.g. :-

• Mobile framework and development tools used in the mobile app • SAP Fiori - mobile development platform • APIs and services to enable data integration

Other technologies are also being evaluated - a standard architectural approach which allows for the co-existence of core technologies will need to be developed. Are there newer versions of the existing technology in which we need to invest?

The majority of the technology is already in place or is free/open source. Do we need to invest in new technologies?

Other technical components may need to be investigated depending upon detailed requirements. Do we have appropriate infrastructure to enable us to adopt the technology?

The majority of the infrastructure is already in place or planned. What human resource will be needed to implement the technology?

There will be a significant resource required to complete the following tasks

1. User focus groups to determine user journeys / UI requirements 2. UX / UI design 3. Development and user testing


Page 15 of 31

What human resource will be needed to train staff in the use of the technology?

The prime objective of the project will be to create intuitive user interfaces to existing applications functionality. Minimising the need for end user training will be a key success criteria. New developers, and third party suppliers of software will need an induction/assets package to enable them to use our standards. These resources will need to be developed by NUIT. What resource is needed to persuade staff to adopt the new technology?

Training resources from the central support services. Promotion and awareness raising through a variety of communication channels. What is a realistic timeframe for the technology to be in place?

A phased implementation of improvements could be undertaken over a 1-2 year timeframe. This is an opportunity to improve, re-brand and re-market existing systems. New systems would conform to the UI / UX guidelines from the outset to ensure consistency. Ongoing design improvements / refreshes could be scheduled on a regular or ad-hoc basis similar to the product development approach taken by mobile app suppliers. What would be the anticipated costs of this development? Software investment ??? Technical support ???? Pedagogic support ?????


Page 16 of 31

Objective 6:- Develop improved data analytics to allow student interactions with IT systems to be used to improve the learning experience

Why would the technology be of benefit and to whom? Data analytics allow a range of data sources on student behaviour (e.g. application usage) to be analysed in novel ways to provide insight to individuals and also enhanced management information. This information can be used to evaluate and enhance existing services (e.g. to identify the need for changes to facilities in specific locations). Large datasets can also be analysed to provide new insights into behaviour and outcomes (e.g. identifying the impact of different factors on student progress / retention). These datasets are also a potentially valuable research resource for some disciplines. This technology has the potential to have a significant impact upon LTSE via service creation / enhancement and the formation of initiatives and policy. Does the technology currently exist and is it fit for purpose?

A large amount of usage data is already collected for the purpose of service monitoring and improvement. Work is underway to combine suitable datasets to facilitate a student centric perspective on the usage of services. This analysis is already providing useful insights (e.g. into PC cluster and print usage). Much of this technology is directly applicable to pedagogic learning analytics use cases. The use of learning analytics (especially in the USA) is growing rapidly. Technologies to enable machine learning to be applied to data to automatically create novel interpretations are in use in a number of HEIs in the UK (e.g. Nottingham Trent have used the technology to inform the creation of a student progress dashboard used by staff and students). The technology to provide a pilot service is already in place and fit for purpose. A pilot service will provide valuable analytics in its own right. It will also enable us to develop learning analytics approaches enabling future practices (machine learning etc.) to be contemplated. Are there newer versions of the existing technology in which we need to invest?

It is envisaged that we will continue to combine datasets to create increasing opportunities for analysis, management information and service enhancement. We need to investigate different options to enable data visualisation and reporting to allow for wider usage by staff as this develops and interest grows. Do we need to invest in new technologies?

Existing technology investments can take us a long way and will enable the delivery of a pilot service. In the long term we will need to consider new investment when we wish to apply more bleeding edge techniques such as machine learning to create novel actionable insights from our data (e.g. identifying factors which affect students’ progress). Do we have appropriate infrastructure to enable us to adopt the technology?


Page 17 of 31

Yes. The majority of the data is produced by existing systems and processes. The NUIT Systems Architecture Team operate a robust data administration and integration service which is utilised by the majority of IT systems. They have the skills and technology platforms to combine and curate the datasets. Additional infrastructure may be required if we find that it is desirable to create / use other data sources (e.g. understanding when students enter or leave buildings). What human resource will be needed to implement the technology?

Some resource will be required in the NUIT Systems Architecture Team to enable and facilitate this analysis / reporting service ongoing. Resource will be required from LTDS to shape the reports and to formulate the relevant questions to be addressed by reporting. LTDS staff will also be required to propose a structure to provide ethical oversight as to the appropriate use of the data and analytics. Both of these requirements are already considerations for LTDS, this initiative will require additional attention What human resource will be needed to train staff in the use of the technology?

LTDS and NUIT staff will need a small amount of training to enable them to use the data visualisation / reporting tools so that they can use the technology as part of their existing roles. Similar training will also be required for other staff when we choose to give them access to the data. What resource is needed to persuade staff to adopt the new technology?

We need to carefully consider how we want this data to be used and by whom. JISC’s recently published code of practice is a useful starting point :- https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/code-of-practice-for-learning-analytics There are potential policy implications even though data would be anonymised to protect individuals' rights. Ideally we will create a policy and technology framework that enables any member of staff to utilise these resources to enable improvements to services and LTSE outcomes. What is a realistic timeframe for the technology to be in place?

The pilot service will become a standard tool for a range of LTDS and NUIT staff within 12 months. This could be piloted by other staff as a subsequent phase. Wider roll out will depend on discussions within eLSI and beyond. What would be the anticipated costs of this development? Software investment ??? Technical support ???? Pedagogic support ?????

https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/code-of-practice-for-learning-analytics


Page 18 of 31

Objective 7:- Provide specialist support services to facilitate user engagement with technology enhanced learning

Why would be the benefit and to whom? For all technology enhanced learning it is clear that individual members of staff need training in both what the technology can do to enhance their teaching and their student’s experience but also specific support in using the technology in a teaching session. This latter support would involve direct input from a learning technologist to work alongside the staff member to help them develop the relevant session materials but also to ensure that the IT is functional in the session venue and that the session runs smoothly. These learning technologists should be distributed across the Faculties to provide local and timely support. It should be stressed that without investment in these individuals any other investment in learning technologies and any ambitions to increase uptake and encourage innovation across a wider group of teachers will be wasted. Do such individuals exist and are they fit for purpose?

Within LTDS and NUIT there are a few learning technologists and the Faculty of Medical Sciences employs two lecture theatre technicians to help support staff with teaching room AV. However the LTDS staff are overloaded and although able to offer a number of training sessions in each year are not able to work alongside academics in the development of material. Similarly the teaching technicians in FMS are not experts in pedagogic design and while able to sort out issues with teaching room technology are not able to help academic staff prepare for sessions. There is a clear need for learning technologists to work with Faculties and schools to encourage staff to make full use of learning technologies and to work alongside staff to develop pedagogically appropriate materials. Do we need to invest in new staff?

Yes. If we are to maximise the student experience through the development of blended learning supported by teaching technology then we need to develop a core of individuals who will work with academics and essentially provide the time that academics do not have. Do we have appropriate structures to enable us to provide this support?

There are a variety of management models which could be used to manage this new resource, working within and across existing organisational structures to deliver the maximum benefit from the additional resource.


We would need to employ at least six additional learning technologists plus a learning technology manager. These will need to work closely with identified academic leads who will provide insight into current teaching and learning methodologies. What is a realistic timeframe for the technologists to be in place?


Page 19 of 31

This is something that could be built into budgets for 2016/7 and so individuals could be place for the start of the 2016 academic year. However discussions about the best management structure for delivery of this additional service are likely delay implementation until 2017/2018.


• Philip Bradley, Head of School of Medical Education and Chair of the eLearning and Student Information Committee

• Dave Wolfendale, Assistant Director, Learning, Teaching & Research, NUIT • Richard Harrison, Head of the Learning and Teaching Development Service • Carol Summerside, Development Officer, Learning and Teaching Development Service • Sue Gill, Senior Development Officer, Learning and Teaching Development Service

February 2016


Page 20 of 31

Appendix 1 Following the workshop session with members of this Committee to conduct a benefits analysis for the current learning technology projects and services five workshop sessions have taken place to investigate the question ““How can we use technology to help us deliver the best Learning and Teaching experience?” One ‘trial run’ workshop with PSS staff and four with a total of 30 staff from a range of Schools and Sections from across the University.

Schools/Faculties:

Architecture Planning and Landscape Arts and Cultures Biology Biomedical Sciences FMS Graduate School Geography, Politics and Sociology HaSS Faculty Office Institute of Health and Society Marine Science and Technology Maths & Stats Medical Education Development Psychology

Professional Support Services

Careers Service Library (including Writing Development Centre) LTDS NUIT Student Progress Service Student Wellbeing Service

Attendees were asked what positives and negatives/issues they had encountered during their time at the University in relation to five broad themes - teaching, learning, assessment and feedback, communication and personal development. They were then asked to consider the technology they used regularly and what innovative technologies they had heard of / seen. Finally they were asked to consider how the technologies could help to address some of the issues.

The key emerging themes from the workshops were:

A need for increased support for staff wishing to use technologies that are new/unfamiliar to them and for those wishing to develop both blended and distance learning provision.

- Uncertainty, risk, ‘what if it doesn’t work’ - More support - More space to evaluate - Space to fail when innovating - Peers sharing e.g. 3Ps workshops - Allocated time for learning and development in staff workload


Page 21 of 31

- Or could have a “technology week” instead of reading week each term/semester/year - More resources to provide funds for teaching development (innovation) to embed

technology into existing teaching materials - Customising systems so that time is allocated to a module rather than just to 'credit' e.g.

e-learning taken longer to develop - Timely support – not just initial training but support afterwards when actually using it - Staff community of knowledge – contacts to help with skills or information

A need for improvements to and better integration of current systems for both staff and students

- One portal for everything - IT spend appropriate to our Russell Group Competitors - More flexibility in the software and hardware I choose to use - Remove need to move between systems - Ability to personalise/select types of communications received - Paperless meetings and working – need file storage to support this - Best systems have one slick interface - University platform – we silo and we shouldn’t - Flexibility is key requirement

Moves towards more online/technology supported assessment and feedback

- All on-line assessment as long as suitable - Computer aided exams - Online essay based exams – not just short answers - Centralised feedback system - Learning analytics platform – self-directed approach to assessment - Systems to share feedback comments which could be contextualized but also used to

help improve quality of feedback - Better systems for online marking of “written” work (including blind double marking) - Recorded feedback – oral and visual - Handwritten comments via online feedback – pens and tablets - Using technology to enable different types of assessment e.g. ask students to produce a

video or animation rather than an essay

Using technology to aid communication and planning

- How can we use technology to increase frequency and quality of face to face dialogue? - Merging lists to avoid duplication of emails - eMail free day - Use skype or similar to facilitate group discussion - Single points of contact for staff and student questions that are triaged - Big Data: map out courses, overlaying assignments/hand-ins enabling course leaders to

improve course design. Data could also be used to identify busy periods for services which may be school specific

- Mobile devices: help students (and staff) to balance their lifestyles better - time spent working VS leisure. Managing time, healthier working

- Cloud based collaborative tools e.g.. Google docs/Evernote: enabling collaboration between students and staff

- Move away from e-mail attachments and multiple versions: more use of content systems and cloud


Page 22 of 31

- Video conferencing on mobiles: students can form a discussion group virtually through their devices

- Skype/Lync: Use for short remote personal tutoring/feedback

Using technology to ‘track’ student engagement and learning

- Trackers: tracking learning and personal development through the course - like Fitbit for brains

- Self-control apps – to help students and staff self-manage study time distractions - Fitbit/smart watch – record hours of work done for student, e.g. time in lectures, time in

library - Learning analytics platform – track learning to enhance our understanding of how

student’s learn, engage, attend, need support


Page 23 of 31

Appendix 2 Summary of teaching approaches and TEL requirements for Learning and Teaching

Approach Requirements Face to face lectures • Lecture theatres

• Classroom technology o Computers o Projectors o Audio o Visualizer o Recordable whiteboard

• Lecture recording Interactive lectures • Lecture theatres

o Standard o Collaborative

• Classroom technology o Computers o Projectors o Audio o Visualizer o Recordable whiteboard

• Lecture recording • Interactivity

o Provided devices o Own devices

• Staff training/awareness ‘Flipped’ sessions • VLE

• Lecture capture technology • Desktop recording and editing • Provision to produce web based

learning materials o Staff training/time o Elearning specialist support o Appropriate software

• Collaborative learning spaces • Interactivity

o Provided devices o Own devices

Computer aided cluster based teaching • Computer clusters o Teaching console o Interactive technology o audio

• Appropriate software • Staff training

Online delivery of course content • VLE • Provision to produce web based

learning materials


Page 24 of 31

o Staff training/time o Elearning specialist support o Pedagogic support o Appropriate software

Laboratory based teaching • Laboratory space

• Computers for simulation experiments • Appropriate software • Interactive technology • Assessment tools for practical skills • Teaching console • Ability to deliver teaching material to

students at benches • Audio

Small group seminars (face-to-face) • Seminar rooms • Flexible configuration • Teaching console • Projection • Whiteboard

o Normal o interactive

Large group team based learning • Large flat floor space • Flexible furniture • Whiteboards

o Normal o Digital

• Group access PCs or devices • Interactive technology • Audio • Teaching console • Ability to share material between

students and teachers Online group discussion (synchronous) • Web-based discussion forum

• VLE • Staff involvement/training (Optional)

Online group discussion (asynchronous) • Web-based discussion forum • VLE • Staff moderator

Live online seminars • Virtual classroom (high capacity) • Staff moderator/training

Problem based learning (paper based) • Seminar rooms • Flexible configuration • Teaching console • Projection • Whiteboard

o Normal o interactive

Problem based learning (computer based) • Seminar rooms • Flexible configuration • Teaching console • Projection


Page 25 of 31

• Whiteboard o Normal o Interactive

• Group access computers/devices • Ability to share material between

students and teachers

Assessment and feedback Across the University assessment and feedback have been identified through NSS scores as the areas where student satisfaction is lowest. Within these domains there are areas where technology can facilitate the smoother delivery of assessment and feed back to students but it must be recognised that this is an area where academic time and effort is needed to enable the following :-

• ensuring adequate design of an assessment strategy for a programme of study • ensuring careful consideration of the setting of threshold marks • ensuring clear definition of and adherence to marking criteria • ensuring the provision of clear, comprehensive, timely and constructive feedback

The table below indicates areas where technology can facilitate the provision of assessment and feedback and outlines what may be required in the future.

Approach Requirements Online assessment • Large computer clusters

• Locked down PCs • Technical support • Academic training

or • Large flat floor spaces • Student devices (tablets/laptops) • Power • WiFi • Technical support • Academic training

Online submission of written work • VLE • Submission software • Secure assessment storage • Appropriate student notification • Automatic plagiarism check

Online marking of written work • VLE • Campus and offline access to work • Marking software • Link to central mark repository • Link to e-portfolio? • Staff training • Admin training

Online feedback for written work • VLE • Feedback website?/VLE • Campus and offline access to work • Feedback software


Page 26 of 31

• Audio feedback delivered to student • Link to central mark repository • Link to e-portfolio? • Staff training • Admin training

Online feedback for written examination performance

• VLE • Appropriate question delivery and

analytical software • Question bank with written feedback

for wrong answers • Staff time • Location and format to display feedback

Online tracking of student progress • VLE • Student access to student record • Comparative cohort data • Tutor access to student record • Location to present data

Online marking of practical work • Either submitted work as above or • Real time marking using device

o Appropriate software o WiFi or delayed synchronisation o Staff training o Link to student record

Student interaction and communication One of the consequences of a move to blended learning is that students may spend less time on campus and may be gathered together as a year cohort less frequently. This raises a number of issues with respect to student experience and sense of identity. It is important that the University and its staff find appropriate ways to continue to engage with the student body and to allow student cohorts to interact with each other. The table below indicates some of the technologies that may promote interaction and communication and indicates what further requirements there may be.

Approach Requirements Meetings between student and tutor (pastoral) • VLE

• e-portfolio o direct access o remote access

• link to student record • Staff training • Student training

On-line (synchronous)meetings between student groups

• VLE • On line forum – multi platform • Virtual classroom • Ability to share screens

Integrated gateway to course materials and course information

• VLE (One stop shop) • Appropriate data architecture • Technical support • Easy staff upload


Page 27 of 31

• Newcastle App Social media • University policy

• Staff training • Student training • Classroom software to share

communication • Technical support for combining social

media messages • Information feed to students

Student access to assessment and feedback information

• VLE • Agreed level of information to be

provided • Admin support • Feedback website/software • Link to student record in eportfolio

Staff – tutor group interactions • VLE • Virtual classroom • Discussion board • Remote access – multiple platform

Student self-management of learning plan • VLE • eportfolio • Learning plan • Staff training • Student training

University welfare support • VLE Portal to welfare • Online interaction eg Skype, Lync,

facetime etc • Agreed standard multi platform

Educational intercourse between student and teacher

• Email (reply time policy?) • Virtual meeting room • VLE discussion • Online interaction eg Skype, Lync,

facetime etc

Communication of general University information to students

• Social media • Email • Display screens • Course handbooks • VLE • University website


Page 28 of 31

Appendix 3

ReCap – Review and re-tender at the end of the current contract (August 2017)

Why would the technology be of benefit and to whom? The existing benefits of ReCap to students would be maintained. Improved functionality will be sought in the areas of personalisation and workflow for staff and students to further enable the effective management and viewing of recordings. Improvements in the record, edit and publish features will enable wider use by staff and students in terms of content creation for assessment and feedback. Does the technology currently exist and is it fit for purpose? We currently use software from Panopto. This is generally fit for purpose but improvements are required in at least the areas of editing of recordings, administration, support and reporting. Are there newer versions of the existing technology in which we need to invest? As well as Panopto, there are at least 3 other credible global suppliers of this technology - from initial investigations all appear to provide the majority of the functionality required. We have to enter into a tender process to select the best solution. Do we need to invest in new technologies? It may be necessary to implement new dedicated hardware capture devices in a significant number of venues (e.g. > 60 occupancy) in order to improve reliability, quality and functionality. We will also investigate whether a Vendor hosted solution (rather than NUIT hosted) option is most effective. Do we have appropriate infrastructure to enable us to adopt the technology? Yes for our own hosting - some hardware capture devices will be needed for venues. What human resource will be needed to implement the technology? The existing ReCap team (NUIT, LTDS and academic colleagues) will carry out the selection and implementation with additional input from staff and students. What human resource will be needed to train staff in the use of the technology?


Page 29 of 31

One of the features of a new technology and a determinant of whether it is adopted should be that for staff it is intuitive to use. This builds upon the basic design objectives of the ReCap project. There may be a small amount of training required if there is a new look and feel to the product and/or for those who wish to use new functionality. However the overall objective will be to reduce the impact of the transition on staff and students. What resource is needed to persuade staff to adopt the new technology? The resource allocated to the existing ReCap team. Additional LTDS resource may need to be allocated if there is significant additional demand to use ReCap for more assessment, feedback, lecture-flipping etc. What is a realistic timeframe for the technology to be in place?

The new system must be in place by August 2017. What would be the anticipated costs of this development? Consultancy ??? Software investment ??? Technical support ???? Pedagogic support ?????


Page 30 of 31

Strategic review of VLE and eLearning platforms

Why would the strategic review be of benefit and to whom? There are currently 2 platforms in use for the delivery of UG teaching and learning (Blackboard and LSE). There are several other platforms in use and/or development for the delivery of MOOCs, engagement, CPD and PGT provision. The Task And Finish Group proposed that Blackboard and LSE should be reviewed to see whether rationalisation of platforms was practical or desirable. Current platforms available for online and blended learning provision are seen as less than optimal by many stakeholders. This is the case in terms of available functionality and flexibility for the delivery of innovative pedagogy, but also from the perspective of integration with systems to manage the student lifecycle (e.g. recruitment, registration, payment, management of grades, feedback etc.). A recent tender for the institutional VLE resulted in a contract which was awarded to Blackboard for a 2 year term (from July 2016) - with the ability to extend this for 1 or a maximum of 2 additional years. This time frame was chosen to allow for the ability to move from Blackboard if that was a strategic conclusion of the review. The strategic review of existing and planned platforms will create a clear understanding of academic and administrative requirements and enable strategic and tactical investment decisions to be made. This will avoid further piecemeal investment and is a pre-requisite of any growth in provision in this area. This will also enable a clear understanding of UG and PGT requirements for the next institutional VLE acquisition within 3 years. The key objective of this will be to improve flexibility, ease of use and pedagogic options to deliver a significantly improved staff and student experience. Does the technology currently exist and is it fit for purpose? Blackboard and LSE deliver reliable highly used services which are extremely popular with students. However, there are functional gaps and issues of flexibility / adaptability and cost with all platforms. This is a dynamic market and other platform options may offer significant benefits. Are there newer versions of the existing technology in which we need to invest? Possibly, depending upon the outcome of the review. Do we need to invest in new technologies? Possibly, depending upon the outcome of the review. Do we have appropriate infrastructure to enable us to adopt the technology? Possibly, and some platforms may be externally provided.


Page 31 of 31

What human resource will be needed to implement the technology? There will be a significant amount of LTDS, NUIT and academic staff time involved in the review. There will need to be a wide consultation on new and existing requirements and expected types of usage. The extensive work already carried out for the VLE tender will form a useful basis for a comprehensive requirements definition and review. Resource requirements for implementation will depend upon the outcome of the review and its subsequent use to determine investment decisions relating to tactical and strategic platform provision. What human resource will be needed to train staff in the use of the technology? One of the key features of a new platform and a determinant of whether it is selected and adopted will be that is intuitive for staff and students to use. Resource is dependent upon subsequent investment decisions. What resource is needed to persuade staff to adopt the new technology? Resource is dependent upon subsequent investment decisions. What is a realistic timeframe for the review to be completed?

It is realistic to complete a review within 12 months, provided that sufficient resource is allocated to the project. What would be the anticipated costs of this development? Consultancy ??? Software investment ??? Technical support ???? Pedagogic support ?????

Documents

Roadmap towards Technology Enhanced Learning … · Roadmap towards Technology Enhanced Learning ... The main document outlines some of the underlying principles of a blended learning