e-Learning Case Studies

Name and e-mail: Joe Buchanan (j.buchanan@bath.ac.uk)

Keywords (pedagogical):

Keywords (technical): PaperShow

Discipline: n/a

Year/ability: n/a

Course title: n/a

Background

In autumn 2009, I was asked to give sessions on business website design to each of two groups of Women into Enterprise students. The sessions were 3 and 2 hours long, and were to cover largely top-level information to point the budding entrepreneurs in the right direction and build on their natural resourcefulness.

I had given a similar session in the summer, but decided the day before to rework it to make it more participative and to take into account any attempts the students had already made on developing a web presence.

The room in which I delivered the second session was on the small side; the projector screen took up most of the front wall.

What took place?

I started off each session by introducing the students to three major elements that go into producing any publication, be it a novel or a website, and drew on their experiences.

What was the role of the technology?

PaperShow was in the main a flipchart substitute – useful in a small room and in order to be next to the laptop which drove the rest of the session. I used a blank sheet, building up a diagram to illustrate my ideas and using different colours to add notes about student experiences. It was also a handy piece of technology to grab at the last minute instead of rushing to create content in advance.

In the second session, the course tutor requested to use the PaperShow herself, and used it to draw a mind map of the key questions students should be asking themselves as a result of the session.

All diagrams were exported as PDFs and made available to the students, either through Moodle or through the website we had created as part of the session.

Outcomes

How did the participants find it?

[No direct feedback was sought on the use of this technology, so the following is just from reactions.] It was a good plan to start off my sessions using PaperShow: the students’ interest was immediate and their attention was grabbed by the novelty and the immediacy. The students confirmed that even the smallest of my notes were readable. The course tutors showed great interest in the technology itself and could see the potential for using it in their own sessions.

Issues/problems

What tips do you have for others?

I started the first session with the PaperShow pad on the same table as the laptop and projector. I press hard when I write and the projected image was shuddering as a consequence, so I moved the pad to a different table. In addition, I suffered from low battery on both occasions – mostly as a consequence of leaving the cap off the pen for the whole session, rather than replacing it after the first 15 minutes. So I would recommend ensuring that you have a minute or two to replace the cap and export the diagrams before carrying on with the rest of the session, if you know that’s the end of your PaperShow requirements.

Plans for the future

If I give any more such sessions, I would perhaps prepare the bones of the diagram on a PowerPoint slide and then annotate them – still using PaperShow as a flipchart substitute, but just upping the quality of what I produce.

Name & email: Lindsay Jordan (l.jordan@bath.ac.uk)
Keywords (pedagogical): collaboration, discussion, e-tivities
Keywords (technical): QR codes
Discipline: Built environment
Year / ability: Masters level
Course title: Msc International Construction Management

Background
What took place?
In December 2008 we incorporated QR codes into the students’ workfiles (the printed material that accompanies their distance learning studies). The QR codes are displayed alongside group discussion activities presented in the workfile that are to be completed online. An example of how the QR codes are displayed within the workfiles can be seen here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/36539173@N06/3367893820/.
An explanation of the codes and how they might be used was provided in the students’ study guides (http://www.flickr.com/photos/36539173@N06/3366963521/)

What was the role of the technology?
The programme is in a transitory stage between traditional paper-based and online distance learning. The emphasis on content is gradually decreasing as greater importance is placed on collaborative knowledge construction and sharing of and reflecting upon professional experience. We are looking into presenting core content in a more appropriate (electronic) format for future cohorts. In the meantime the QR codes provide a hard link from the paper workfiles to the group discussions and reflective activites.

Outcomes
We are currently seeking student feedback on their experiences of using (or not using) the QR codes; in particular we are asking for responses to the following questions:

• Did they notice the QR codes in the workfile? Did they know what they were for? Did they read the information about QR codes in the study guide? Was it helpful?
• If they didn’t use the QR codes, why not? E.g. didn’t know what they were for, didn’t have necessary software on phone, couldn’t access internet on phone, didn’t have the right mobile browser to view & use the web page… etc.
• If they did use the QR codes, did they find them useful? In what way(s)? Have they any suggestions for how they might be more useful, or any other ways we could use them to enhance their learning experience?

Initial responses to these questions are currently being sought via a discussion forum on the programme area in the VLE, and there is the potential to explore further any issues raised at the next residential school in June.

• Name & email: Andy Ramsden (a.ramsden@bath.ac.uk)

• Keywords (pedadogical):
• Keywords (technical): QR Codes

• Discipline: n/a
• Year / ability: n/a
• Course title: n/a

Background

What took place?

I recently used QR Codes (http://www.bath.ac.uk/barcodes) to support the University’s Innovations Week in Teaching and Learning. The aim was to include QR Codes on the supporting material to enable the mobile (phone) user to more effeciently connect to online material and complete any required tasks.

What was the role of the technology?

The QR Codes were used in a number of different contexts;

Poster displays

QR Codes were used around the poster display area to allow people to scan the code and connect with the supporting blog. In this scenario the person would scan the code, access the blog and either leave a comment for the author or read and comment on other people’s views. Alternatively, they could scan a second QR Code to send a submit their comments via SMS. The outcome is a reduction in barroers to leaving comments. For instance, the person was not required to leave the poster display area to find a computer.

Access to online support materials

We provided a large number of different forms of publicity materials, from fliers and posters, to fortune cookies. These included a QR Code which linked to further online support material. The thoughts behind this was to provide just in time information to where the person was located.

Examples of these are available from: http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=iw2009

Outcomes

How did the participant find it?

This is very difficult to quantify as there was no log information and it is diffiult to observe. My observations as I walked around and demonstrated QR Codes during the event was the general response was “wow, I didn’t know you could do that ! Would it be cool if …” type response. This I’d suggest this demonstrates people are unaware of the technology. When surveyed after the event, the responses indicated unawareness and non-engagement. For instance, when asked, “did you use the QR Codes on the Innovations Week posters and leaflets?” The responses were yes (2), no (6), didn’t know what a QR Code is (4). Unfortunately, the respondents didn’t explain why they hadn’t used them.

One positive outcome was from the perspective of the people generating the QR Codes. There were around 4 people in the team who used the University of Bath’s QR Code Generator (http://www.bath.ac.uk/barcodes ). They had no problems, or support needs in generating and including them within their materials.

Issues / Problems

Given this is such a newly emerging technology within Learning and Teaching, I’d divided the issues as follows;

Raising awareness

There is a clear need to make people more aware of QR Codes within the poster display area. When I talked people through a QR Code I tended to refer to the poster that I had created as part of the event. This meant a causal browser would have to find the Introduction to QR Codes Poster within the posters to undersatnd what they re and how to use them. When a preferable model might be to include this type of information through out the poster display area. I’d suggest tailoring the poster to have more focus on what they need to know, i.e., what are qr codes and how to get readers on their phones. The poster is available from http://opus.bath.ac.uk/13341/

Motivating people to install the software

People need to identify a value (pay back) in spending time installing the software on their phone. Therefore, there is a requirement to encourage all people presenting or creating content to include a QR Code. There also needs to be some more thought into how we might use them for a wider range of uses then simply accessing additional online materials.

Maximising usability

Mostly the QR Codes linked to a web based resources. Clearly, there is an issue about whether the web resource is usable on a small screen device. For instance, can the person read and navigate around the resource on their phone. This was very straight forward when using the WordPress Blog. I arranged with the Web Services at the University of Bath to install the PDA WordPress plug-in. Therefore, you can link to the blog and complete the task on your phone. However, this wasn’t the case with the links to some web sites, and support material (slides, and documents).

What tips do you have for others?

Firstly, address the issues and problems raised in the previous section. Secondly, a very practical tip would be to implement an image management process. For instance, we generated a large number of QR Codes on this project and to reduce repetition at creating the same link numerous times we used share drived / shared file repositories. At the University of Bath, the LMF (http://www.bath.ac.uk/lmf ) is perfect for this task.

Plans for the future

Overall, I was very encouraged by this pilot. It highlighted a considerable number of issues surrounding how we might ensure that QR Codes are effectively implemented. I’m already building on this experience as I’ll be working with UKOLN on the effective use of QR Codes to support their 2009 Workshop.

• Name and e-mail: Kevin Renfrew (K.C.J.Renfrew@bath.ac.uk), Roger Gardner (r.gardner@bath.ac.uk)
• Keywords (pedagogical): e-assessment, diagnostic, language testing
• Keywords (technical):
• Discipline: n/a
• Year / ability: n/a
• Course title: n/a

Background
The UBELT team in the English Language Centre at the University of Bath develop and deliver professional language testing for overseas medical professionals coming to work in the UK. Clients include the NHS, Tesco Pharmacy, Boots, Integrated Dental Holdings, Oasis Dental Care as-well-as various small independent medical employers. Kevin Renfrew, UBELT Business Development Manager, was looking for an online solution, available at any time and from any geographical location, which could be used as a diagnostic test for Boots. This would be used for pre-screening of pharmacy candidates, to enable identification of candidates who were ready to take the UBELT assessment.

What actually took place?
Kevin approached the e-learning team with a set of requirements and through discussion with Learning Technologist, Roger Gardner, identified the possibilities and limitations of the Moodle quiz tool. Although the tool did not meet all of his requirements, Kevin concluded that there were sufficient question types, reporting and other functionality.

Roger ran a customised workshop on use of the Quiz for Kevin and a number of his colleagues, after which they began developing question banks and setting up quizzes. The tests have 3 parts in Moodle:

1. Reading and Use of English Language. This makes use of gap fill, multiple choice and short answer questions.
2. Writing. This uses the Moodle essay question for submission but is marked manually
3. Listening. This involves audio clips and makes use of gap fill, multiple choice and short answer questions.

Time limits were set on the quizzes, and as the participants were not University of Bath students, Kevin contacted BUCS (Bath University Computing Services) to get temporary WAAA user accounts set up which were used to give access to the tests.

What was the role of the technology?
One of the requirements for the tests was that participants should not be disadvantaged by the fact that they were conducted online, for example by lack of familiarity with the technology. So the UBELT team set up practice tests which participants could access as many times as they liked in order to familiarise themselves with the environment, and identify any technical issues so these could be resolved before the real test, e.g. ensuring audio was working correctly.

The technology enabled participants to access the tests at a time and place convenient to themselves, and gave them an opportunity to practise assessments. The practice tests had formative feedback so that participants could see where they had gone wrong.

Outcomes
Were the objectives met?
Broadly, yes. Initial indications suggest that final results on the UBELT test show good concurrency with the online diagnostic, though participant numbers are too small to be conclusive. The online diagnostic has also provided positive additional practice for those attempting the full UBELT Test.

How did the participants find it?
The participants found the assessments useful and also that they helped to de-mystify the actual test event though these are not conducted online. Feedback from test commissioners (those who request and book the tests on behalf of the client or candidate) stated that the tests were easy to use, well laid out, effective and usable.

Issues / problems
Because of the question types employed UBELT has not been able to use the item analysis function and has had to rely on undertaking item analysis of questions manually to refine and improve their question designs.

On investigation by the e-learning team this was discovered to be caused by a wider Moodle bug, concerning item analysis of gap-fill questions, which is as yet unresolved.

UBELT would also like more flexibility in framing questions, for example getting audio to start automatically when a page is loaded rather than requiring the student to click to start it.

What tips do you have for others?
1. Ensure you have a clear objectives beforehand
2. Allow plenty of time for planning and developing quizzes, especially if working on them intermittently. Also allow time for housekeeping e.g. deleting duplicate questions.

Plans for the future
The team are considering broadening out their use of online diagnostic tests to all pharmacy candidates, other medical professions for which UBELT Tests exist, and are also investigating its use for pre-assessment of students in European medical schools.

• Name & email: Lindsay Jordan (l.jordan@bath.ac.uk)

• Keywords (pedadogical): online (distance learning) group work
• Keywords (technical): Discussion forum, chat, wiki, moodle

• Discipline: n/a
• Year / ability: n/a
• Course title: MSc International Construction Management

---

Background

Aims and objectives (what were you trying to do?)

We wanted to develop and pilot an assessment activity that enabled the students to develop and demonstrate negotiation skills relevant to the learning outcomes of the Construction Law module, such as conflict management and dispute resolution. We also wanted to give students the opportunity to apply their understanding of contract law to practice.

What actually took place (describe what you did)?

We took an existing dispute resolution role-play scenario that Jim had used previously with students at UWE, and adapted it to become an online activity for distance learners. Within the Moodle course for the module, we provided background information in a series of web pages, a group sign-up wiki, a negotiation forum for students to communicate privately within their groups, a group wiki for each group to produce an agenda for their negotiation meeting and record the outcomes of their meeting, and a Chat activity to give students the option of synchronous negotiation.

The task was clearly divided into three phases and four distinct deadlines were set, the first being the date by which students needed to have signed up to a working group in the sign-up wiki.

What was the role of the technology (what did the technology add?)?

The Forum, Wiki and Chat tools allowed students to easily select their own working groups, to share and comment on position statements within their own groups, to negotiate synchronously or asynchronously and to collaborate on producing an agenda and recording the outcomes of their negotiation, regardless of their geographical location.
The technology also made it easy for us to monitor student participation and group progress, and to contact groups or individuals where necessary throughout the task.

---

Outcomes

Were the objectives met?

The evidence gained so far supports the objectives having been met. 100% participation was achieved and all students received grades of 55% or more for this task, with many students achieving over 70%. Two students (out of 33) chose to defer their studies part-way through the task, but the design of the activity had allowed for this possibility and their fellow group members were not disadvantaged. All students went on to achieved C grades and above in the module assignment – this was a significant improvement on previous cohorts and on the grades achieved in previous modules by this cohort. Students will sit the module examination at the end of October 2008.

How did the students find it?

Although several students found some aspects of the task frustrating (for example, arranging to meet in the synchronous chat and one group member being absent) they accepted that similar problems occur when attempting to negotiate through offline means, and they thought the task was fun, engaging and a good opportunity to experience the dispute resolution process. Students will complete formal evaluations of the module and the negotiation task after their examination at the end of October.

Were there any unexpected outcomes?

A few students who hadn’t previously performed particularly well in written assignments and formal examinations appeared to excel in this activity. It will be interesting to compare their assignment and exam grades for this module with those of other modules, and to ask those students in particular how they felt the online role play task enhanced their learning on this module.

A secondary outcome that we could have reasonably expected was an improvement in the cohesion of the group, with new links and friendships being made between group members.

---

An outline of this case study has been submitted to CEBE, the Higher Education Acadmey’s Centre for Education in the Built Environment. The content of this submission can be viewed here.

• Name & email: Andy Ramsden (a.ramsden@bath.ac.uk)

• Keywords (pedadogical): large group teaching
• Keywords (technical): audience response systems, sms, wordclouds

• Discipline: n/a
• Year / ability: n/a
• Course title: n/a

---

Background

Aims and objectives (what were you trying to do?)

A concern with many presentations at conferences (and lectures) is that they tend to be very didactic. Information flows from the presenter but there is little effective feedback from the audience during the session. If feedback opportunities to exist then these tends to be a few people who are comfortable with asking questions during the session. Also a problem in many situations is when to do ask from audience input it is very unstructured so this makes it very difficult for the person presenting to be able to process this in a meaningful way.

My intention was to use a combination of simple technologies to encourage audience participation and ensure that the feedback loop was in a place and effective.

What actually took place (describe what you did)?

As mentioned I used a number of technologies. In many cases I used an audience response system. This was used to gather information about the audience as well as ask specific questions. I used the TurningPoint Audience Response System which allowed me to include questions (and published the results) within my existing powerpoint slides. This was very useful at gathering objective data where I had structured the responses. However, on some occasions there is the need to ask more open questions. In this situation then the audience response system could not be used. On these occasions I encouraged students to text the responses. I use the Edutxt SMS Service with an incoming number. I put the number of my slide and asked the question. I also told students to use a keyword in their responses which was the question identifier. This menat when I logged into the web interface to get the replies I could quickly filter for just those which addressed the question asked. I then cut and paste the responses into the powerpoint slide to present to the audience.

The third approach was to use the SMS route but phrase the question to encourage people to give a lits of one word answers. I then filtered, and cut and paste the responses into a word cloud generator (www.tagcrowd.com) which gae a visual display of the responses.

What was the role of the technology (what did the technology add?)?

The technology enabled this activity to work effectively and ensured a high level of participation. I could have used simpleir technologies (such as colour cards) but this is much more difficult to quantify during the session, and suffers from problems with audience herding. Therefore, alothough there existed established approaches they would not have been as effective.

---

Outcomes

Were the objectives met?

I’d argue that the objectives were met. The technology was deployed to increase the degree of audience involvement in one of my presentations. There was a high level of responses using the Audience Response System that continued throughout the lecture. Audience involvement with the texting was significantly lower (less than 50% participated). However, one of my objectives was to trial its use. Therefore, I gained a significant insight into its potential.

How did the students find it?

I did get some feedback afterwards, generally, people found the approach very engaging and they thought that they benefited from the experience. However, due to the nature of a one-off presentation at a conference this has not been followed up. It would be very interesting to see how students found it after a number of lectures.

Were there any unexpected outcomes?

I’m not sure it was unexpected, however, I was surprised at how easy it was to use the technology in the session.

What tips do you have for others?

1. remember when designing your session to give yourself time to be able to move the texts into the word cloud software or into the powerpoint. For instance, it might take a few minutes to cut and past, remove unwanted text and then paste into a word cloud generator. You’ll want the audience to be doing something, not simply watching you.
2. a really obvious point is you need to actually feedback on the results. It is really important that people are motivated to participate. If the response rate starts to decline then the activity becomes less effective. Therefore, to maintain engagement you have to use the SMS approach selectively and spend time discussing the results and contextualising within the lecture.

---

Additional links:

• http://www.mobile-learning.blog-city.com