This presentation shares data from a three phase audit that has taken place across the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences at the University of Liverpool. The audit covered the topics of VLE minimum standards; online submission, marking and feedback; and lecture capture.

1. A MEMBER OF THE RUSSELL GROUP
TRIANGULATING TEL IN HLS:
What’s happening; What do students
want; and do staff agree?
Peter Reed: Institute of Learning &
Teaching
INSTITUTE OF
LEARNING & TEACHING

2. ILT Activity
In response to LGoS, TEL
Strategy, etc:
TEL Academic &
TEL Support Teams;
A three phase ‘audit’ of TEL
across ILT provision.

3. Current Practice
Staff Perspective Student Perspective
TEL Strategy

4. Current Practice
Staff Perspective Student Perspective
TEL Strategy
Minimum Standards Online Submission
Lecture Capture

5. PHASE 1
What’s Happening?
March - May 2013

6. Phase 1: What’s Happening?
Involved meeting people
(n=40)
And
An audit of VITAL use
(~300)

7. Phase 1: What’s Happening?
Some good (but isolated) practice
Inconsistency in VITAL
Some use of Turnitin
(but little formal online submission/feedback)
Recording of lectures/other content is increasingly
popular

8. PHASE 2
Staff Survey
n=102
July - August 2013

9. Phase 2: Staff Survey
90%
90% of staff agree with provision
of minimum standards (more on
this later)

10. Used MS Word
Used TurnItIn & Grademark
Used Audio Feedback
Used Video Feedback
0 25 50 75 100
92%
28% 62%
48% 12%
7%37%
26%
32%24%
14%
DISAGREE UNAWARE OF LEARN MORE EXPERIENCED
Attitudes & Experience towards electronic marking & feedback

11. Screencasts
Full ‘live’ lecture capture
Pre-recorded to ‘flip’…
‘Other’ video e.g. interviews
0 25 50 75 100
48%
44% 32%
27%
29%47%
10%
10%15%
19%
Attitudes & Experience towards recording materials
38%
23%
44%
DISAGREE UNAWARE OF LEARN MORE EXPERIENCED

12. Screencasts
Full ‘live’ lecture capture
Pre-recorded to ‘flip’…
‘Other’ video e.g. interviews
0 25 50 75 100
48%
44% 32%
27%
29%47%
10%
10%15%
19%
DISAGREE UNAWARE OF… LEARN MORE… EXPERIENCED…
Attitudes & Experience towards recording materials
38%
23%
44%
Some concern recordings may
impact on attendance

13. Time
Recognition of Barriers to engaging & innovation
61% 32% 31%30%29%5%

14. PHASE 3
Student Survey
n=840
October - November 2013

15. Would like to submit
coursework electronically
Would like e-feedback
Would like electronic marks
Would like audio feedback
0 25 50 75 100
55%
DISAGREE INDIFFERENT AGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
Attitudes & Experience towards electronic marking & feedback
20%11%
46%24%17%
41%24%17%10%
20%17%26%20%16%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

16. Would like to submit
coursework electronically
Would like e-feedback
Would like electronic marks
Would like audio feedback
0 25 50 75 100
55%
DISAGREE INDIFFERENT AGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
Attitudes & Experience towards electronic marking & feedback
20%11%
46%24%17%
41%24%17%10%
20%17%26%20%16%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
Students value feedback (despite some research)
Mostly concerned with e-grades (75% A or SA)
eSubmission popular (69% A or SA) - cost savings
‘Innovative’ approaches such as audio feedback not (38%
A or SA%)
Attitudes & Experience towards electronic marking & feedback

17. Would like to access recorded
lectures
Would like synchronised audio
with slides
Would like synchronised video
with slides
Would like dedicated
recordings to watch before
class
0 25 50 75 100
48%
DISAGREE INDIFFERENT AGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
Attitudes & Experience towards recorded content
17%17%
66%15%
58%17%10%
40%21%21%11%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE

18. Would like to access recorded
lectures
Would like synchronised audio
with slides
Would like synchronised video
with slides
Would like dedicated
recordings to watch before
class
0 25 50 75 100
48%
DISAGREE INDIFFERENT AGREE
STRONGLY
AGREE
Attitudes & Experience towards electronic marking & feedback
17%17%
66%15%
58%17%10%
40%21%21%11%
STRONGLY
DISAGREE
Students want to access recordings (80% A or SA)
Synchronised Audio & PPT most popular (76% A or SA)
Synchronised Video & PPT is too (65% A or SA)
However….
Attitudes & Experience towards recorded content

19. Synchronised
audio
Synchronised video
50%
33%
1% 7% 9%
Single preferred approach to recorded content

20. Revisit to
clarify
Revise for exam /
coursework
92%
87%
7%
56%
46%
Intended use of recorded lectures
70%
Overcome
challenges in note-
taking
Catch up on
missed classes
Overcome
concentration
challenges
Instead of
attending
lectures
9%
Overcome
language barriers

21. Whilst
studying at
computer
On mobile device
e.g. travelling
96%
27%
Context for use of recorded lectures
23%
Multi-tasking

22. MINIMUM
STANDARDS
COMPARING STAFF & STUDENT RESPONSES

23. Staff & Students
were provided a list
A Welcome to the area
Contact details for Leader
Contact details for others
Module Specification
Timetable / Schedule
Learning Outcomes
Assessment Strategy
Further Reading
Lecture notes/handouts
Past Exam Papers
Online submission
Formative feedback on draft
Online discussion forums

24. 100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%
93%
88%
87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%
79%
Student suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
* *
**
** *

25. 100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
72%
47%
65%
59%
71%
27%
37%
38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%
Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards

26. 100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Student v Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards

27. 100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%
93%
88%
87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%
79%
Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
72%
47%
65%
59%
71%
27%
37%
38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%

28. 100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%
93%
88%
87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%
79%
Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
72%
47%
65%
59%
71%
27%
37%
38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%
Statistical Tests
Positive correlation between staff & students
(r=0.560)
Some significant differences between staff and
student responses (p=0.0002)
Significant difference between number of items
selected (p=0.0001) - m Staff=9.32: Students=10.91
Significant difference between number of items
selected by male and female students (p=0.0012)

29. 100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Criteria with largest staff/student difference in Minimum standards
37%
46%
41%
34%

30. 100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%
93%
88%
87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%
79%
Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
72%
47%
65%
59%
71%
27%
37%
38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%
Questions
Which criteria do we include?
How much of the student voice is enough?

31. Demo PSYC310
CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
TULIP
BB

32. Demo
CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP

33. Demo
CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP

34. Demo
CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP

35. Demo
CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP

36. Demo
CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
Agreement thus far
Criteria to be included automatically…
1. Module Title & Module Code
2. Module Co-ordinator (name and email address)
3. Aims
4. Learning Outcomes
5. Syllabus
6. Teaching & Learning Strategy
7. Assessment requirements
8. Contact hours
9. Disclaimer

37. Next Steps
Herzberg’s Hygiene Factors
Focus groups

38. What Else?
• Free text questions identified
• Students can’t really identify innovation (mobile or
general)
• Lots of mobile usage and expectation (89%)
• Lots of reference to apps to support studies
• Lots of problems with relatively simple tech issues
with mobile devices such as wifi, email, library
access, etc. Leading to drop-in sessions

39. What Else?
• Students are generally confident with their digital
literacies (79%)….
• But some would like opportunity to develop
further (31%)

40. In Summary
• Expectation and demand from students
• Positive attitudes from staff to engage
• Need support

41. REFERENCES
Bench Image CC BY-NC-ND Flickr User Madhan Kumar
Staff Wanted Image CCBY-NC-SA Flickr User LEOL30
Peter Reed
Lecturer (Learning Technology)
Institute of Learning & Teaching
Faculty of Health & Life Science
peter.reed@liverpool.ac.uk
@reedyreedles
#54332