•  To explore and evaluate the use of e-pens for feedback.
• To explore and evaluate the use of e-pens for the production of reusable learning materials involving diagrams and notation (e.g. in mathematics)
• As a side benefit, to explore and learn more about the potential of e-pens to support learning and teaching in other ways
•  To evaluate e-pens as a technology and surface any potential technical support issues.

Potential uses suggested by staff so far include:

1. Provision of rich personalised feedback e.g. annotating essays, e-marking
2. Using pencasts to support, in a more user-friendly way, teaching techniques that are not particularly well supported by technology at present e.g. drawing and annotation of diagrams, mixing text with audio explanation, and taking learners through processes.
3. In particular mathematics and statistics support for students is an issue often raised by academics. Smartpens allow quick and easy creation of high quality re-usable multimedia resources which can be focussed on identified problem areas of learning.
4. Keeping records of meetings, seminars or groupwork.
5. Using segments of audio-visual content during lectures or as pre-lecture activity.
6. Demonstration of processes, for example approaches to answering exam questions.

We’ll be loaning pens out to staff over the next few months and look forward to seeing what uses they come up with, as well as any issues or challenges.

1. Mouse mode e.g. to open or save files
2. Handwritten comments on the text.
3. Adding ticks or circling words
4. Ink comments
5. Inserting comments automatically converted to print
6. Highlighting
7. Drawing diagrams

The short screencast below shows how this is done.

I was using an Apcom e-pen, Word 2007 and Windows 7.

There was plenty of food for thought in the other presentations and sessions too, of which Andrew Dent’s account of his clicker-based in class decision-tree activity particularly caught my attention.  Despite Andrew’s self-admitted unhealthy obsession with hippos (!) it sounded like a very successful and engaging activity.  Andrew used a combination of hyperlinks in Powerpoint and embedded  Turning Point questions to allow students to work through an engineering challenge of building a bridge. They were able to vote , for example on what materials they would use, and then work through the decision path to see the consequences of particular choices.   This seemed an excellent problem-based learning approach for a large group.

For example, just plug in your e-pen and:

1. Annotate Powerpoint slides using the Inking tools and save the annotated version.

2. Annotate a PDF copy of a presentation by downloading PDF X-change viewer and using its comment and markup tools.

3. If you are showing a website and want to capture and annotate it, then download the Fireshot extension for Firefox or IE, and then use your e-pen to annotate a screenshot of a webpage.

The first thing to say about the pen is that it feels and writes just like a normal ink pen.  It has 2 types of nib, an ink one and a stylus. It is very quick and easy to switch between these. The ink one enables you to write on normal paper, and record notes which can then be uploaded to your PC.  However I have been trying out the stylus plugged in as an input device to my laptop.  The video below gives a flavour of how such an e-pen can be used. (This video is of IRIS notes. )

My laptop is a few years old! It is running Windows Vista and has Word 2003.  For handwriting onto a Word document which is then automatically turned into text, it works well with the Tablet PC input panel in Word.  For handwritten comments or drawings which you prefer to keep in their original format you can use the pen with the Ink Annotations and Ink comment functions in Word.  These annotations can then be saved and provided as feedback.

Some of our markers work with PDF files so I have also tried the e-pen with PDF XChange viewer.  Again it works really well as an input device using the built-in comment and markup tools.

The next challenge is to see whether it is possible to annotate a normal printed document  using the ink function of the e-pen whilst a digital copy is simultaneously made.  The main problem I have found with this at the moment is orientating the e-pen receiver so that the point where you are writing on the paper copy matches the same point on screen.

David White from TALL at Oxford speculated that a face-to-face HE experience may in the future become the preserve of a wealthy minority, whilst others may be financially limited to a “second-class” online programme. However, if UK-based online study is to become a viable option and compete then the digital identity and visibility of programmes must improve dramatically, according to White.

Feedback emerged as a significant theme. This included the successful use of “magic pens” at the University of Central Lancashire, which provide an effective and inexpensive way for staff to provide written feedback using a normal pen-like device. These have proved popular with staff, and with OHPs being withdrawn, e-pens will be part of the replacement in standard teaching rooms.

The OU’s ICMAs (interactive computer marked assignments), offer graduated and targeted feedback, and make use of automated free-text marking using the Intelligent Assessment Technologies (IAT) FreeText author.  – These are used to provide prompt feedback, and “little and often” assessment opportunities, and the answers for the free text quest ions are informed by real student responses, which has been found to be vital.   Further info: www.open.ac.uk/blogs/SallyJordan

At the University of Southampton, they have built a standalone e-submission  and feedback system, which offers flexible options for academics and administrators to incorporate their preferred workflows. Features include pre-submission forms in which students can request feedback on a specific area or aspect of their assignment, the ability to incorporate different marking criteria, and batch download/upload of feedback files, as well as support for anonymous marking.  (www.jisc-ea.soton.ac.uk )

Rebecca Summers  at the University of Wolverhampton has successfully used screen capture to reduce levels of abstraction when providing feedback to students on their music technology assignments .  For Rebecca this has also been quicker than providing text feedback.

Mark Childs from Coventry University has been building on work done for the Sounds Good project on audio feedback.  In his initiative they chose to add generic audio feedback for groups , but also keep individual written feedback, which students did not want to lose.

The conference also saw the release of the  JISC Effective assessment in a digital age resource (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/digiassess),

Sudhir Giri from Google EDU Learning labs gave an interesting insight into staff development in the Google organisation. Despite their ubiquitous search technology it seems that it is difficult for the 22,000 employees to find appropriate resources or human expertise within the organisation . So Sudhir and his team have introduced a range of initiatives within Google to improve this. Apart from the “Learning on the loo”, and “Testing on the toilet” examples, these include:

1. An internal educational search engine, with recommended resources for particular roles
2. Getting Googlers creating content and teaching each other  (g2g) , training colleagues to teach, and video channel g2gTV for sharing instructional clips
3. Getting Googlers connected – finding out who is good at what through gWhiz in which people can skill tag others

Richard Windle from the RLO CETL project kicked off  an interesting session on learning design by outlining the LOAM tool (Learning Object Attribute Metric) , which allows evaluation of the relative attributes of Learning Objects.

Peter Duffy  of Hong Kong Polytechnic University) (http://www.3c.edc.polyu.edu.hk/welcome.html) demonstrated their eLearning Mapping Tool (http://www.3c.edc.polyu.edu.hk/feature_eLearningMapping.html), which aims to provide staff with learning design templates, as well as allowing them to create their own learning objects and share them with colleagues.

Last but not least one could not reflect on this year’s conference without mentioning Sugata Mitra, telling his story of the successes of self organised learning environments. Even though I had seen Sugata  present before, the inspiration of his work was not at all diminished.  Towards the end of his presentation the importance of stimulating curiosity (main “attractor”) was raised, and it was great to hear the crucial role of the teacher (at first seemingly excluded from the process) emphasised in respect of framing and asking good questions.

Manchester Town Hall

Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brostad/

More and richer discussion

One significant improvement this year was that more time  was allowed for question and discussions at the end of papers which made for a much richer experience.

The learner perspective

For me the conference started off appropriately with the learner perspective. Aaron Porter, from the NUS, highlighted the challenge to get more students to consider themselves as part of an academic community, in a situation where, according to a recent NUS survey, 60% of students attend university to improve career prospects, whilst 22% go for reasons of academic interest. Technology can clearly play in role here, but how can we help stimulate this through use of online social networks without taking them over?  Martin Bean, Vice Chancellor in waiting of the OU, also recognised this, in a very entertaining and passionate keynote, when talking about the OU’s SocialLearn project – going to meet students where they are (not the VLE!), but allowing them to retain control.

Richard Walker from York, presenting on staff engagement with technology, questioned student expectation as driver for the adoption of technology. He made the point that a common consumerist approach from students doesn’t necessarily chime with good pedagogic practice. So student pressure might increase the rate of adoption of e-learning, but possibly at the expense of its quality. This is a discussion I often have with academic colleagues. As was shown by the findings of the JISC learner experiences of e-learning programme, students may be familiar with technologies but they don’t necessarily have an understanding of how they can be used for learning. Students, especially in their first year, can be strongly influenced by their lecturers’ use (or lack of use) of technology. So creative, appropriate and well-embedded use in the early stages of a programme can set a valuable example.

Learning design

Shifting to the lecturer perspective, Diana Laurillard talked about supporting teachers in their learning design. This was a recurrent theme of the conference , emphasizing the importance of helping teachers get to grips with learning design to facilitate the sustained and appropriate embedding of technology in teaching programmes. Diana mentioned a range of learning design patterns and ways in which these can be represented, for example in the visual box and arrow diagrams of a tool such as LAMS.  These can be mapped and evaluated against learning theories such as the conversational framework.   Elaine Draffan and Peter Rainger from Southampton looked at the learning design process with a focus on inclusivity in a very useful workshop. They have developed a model for the identification of the challenges presented in designing accessible blended learning. The identification of learner profiles, identifying skills strengths and challenges, can be used to help plan learning activities which meet the needs of a range of students.  Peter is also in the process of putting together an online course for lecturers to help them design blended learning. Many useful resources on designing accessible online learning can be found on the LexDis site, for example strategies for overcoming various accessibility issues.

Death of the VLE??

The much anticipated (and previewed!) “VLE is dead” debate featuring James Clay, Steve Wheeler, Graham Atwell and Nick Sheratt was an entertaining session. Never before have I heard the view that the VLE is not dead but a “self harmer” !
The session succeeded in stimulating lively discussion, especially around whether it would be preferable to focus on what we are trying to achieve as opposed to any particular tools or technologies, taking us back again to areas of curriculum design.

Open Educational Resources

The Jorum Learning and teaching resource competition shortlist was again of very high quality. The Learnhigher resources, for example on groupwork, looked extremely useful. Open educational resources in general were a  hot topic at the conference. Dave O’Hare from Derby presented on the Pocket project, which raised the debate around open content amongst staff in the participating institutions. Dave stated that most of the staff had been happy to share their content, though there were questions as to whether this was due to them being self-selected and whether it would be the same in other institutions or amongst other staff. It is not yet clear to what extent there has been a shift in the traditional academic resistance to sharing resources. However with more universities participating in OER projects, for example the JISC OER programme,  a body of evidence will hopefully start to build up which can be used to help persuade colleagues of the benefits.

The Open Scholar

Terry Anderson picked up on the theme of open content in the final keynote. He extended it to not just content, but what might be the characteristics of the “Open Scholar, for example sharing their research through publishing in Open Access journals. Gideon Burton has written about this on his blog, posing some interesting questions and suggesting that more open scholarship can “bridge the great divide between research and teaching”.

And to end, a plug for Open Access Week,  October 19-23, 2009, which aims to broaden awareness and understanding of open access.

The article describes a project in which student activity in the VLE was tracked and this was mapped against their performance. The aim was to assess whether tracking VLE use could help to identify students at risk of disengagement, who are less likely to complete their programmes of study.

Findings of the study varied between the 2 cohorts involved. In the first year Organisational studies group assessment performance steadily increased in relation to the number of times students accessed the VLE. With the second year Marketing cohort however there appeared to be an optimum level of VLE use above which assessment performance dropped. In other words too much use of the VLE could have a detrimental effect. The authors suggest that this may be due to what Mason (2002) describes as “The flexibility of the medium itself …. the ability to jump from one resource to the next on the Web can be over-used so that relatedness becomes an end in itself, and meaning is lost.”

The authors emphasise the importance of self-efficacy in learners as a way of supporting engagement. They define self-efficacy as “the belief that one can do a task and can transfer the learning of that task to similar tasks”. Prompt feedback can help to build students’ notions of self-efficacy, and VLEs offer a range of opportunities for this.

To a certain extent the authors conclude that their findings are consistent with Lee’s (2001) model of learner engagement in Web-enhanced environments, which identifies 4 learner types: Model students , traditionalists, geeks and the disengaged. However they acknowledge that further investigation is necessary especially into potential reasons why some students access the VLE less than others.

This is certainly one of the questions that arose for me out of reading the article. Also how can lecturers affect student levels of usage to promote engagement, especially early on in a course? (Gilly Salmon’s 5 stage model springs to mind here). According to the article, the VLE is used for “pre- and post- session learning activities … preparatory work, readings, links to a wide range of resources, advice, formative assessment and revision”. How these activities are set up is not described in detail. To what extent is the lecturer’s engagement with and use of the VLE affecting learner engagement here? For example if learners are accessing readings through the VLE, how is the lecturer facilitating reflection on these, and what feedback are they receiving from their peers and/or the lecturer? As I have commented in a previous post on the JISC learner experience of e-learning research, their findings suggested that:

• tutors’ use of technologies is an important influence on learners, especially early on in their studies
• many students are not sure how to use technology to aid their learning
• new learners tend to be conservative in their study habits, having fixed ideas about how technology will be used.

The lecturer’s role would therefore seem to be of utmost importance here: for example ensuring that learners are clear about how they are expected to use the VLE, how its use relates to their F2F contact and what benefits online activity can have for their learning. Also lecturers can have an influence in modelling effective use of technology for learning. Some staff will be able to adapt easily to this online facilitative role, but for others it will be a challenge which will require significant amounts of support. Surely we cannot consider student engagement without also facing up to the challenge of engaging staff in the effective use of technology to enhance learning?

References
Lee, M.G. 2001. Profiling students’ adaptation styles in Web-based learning. Computers and Education 36, no.2: 121-32

Maltby,A. and Mackie,S. Virtual learning environments – help or hindrance for the ‘disengaged’ student?  ALT-J Vol 17, no 1, March 2009

Mason, R. 2002. Review of e-learning for education and training. Paper presented at the Networked Learning Conference, March 26-28 n Sheffield, UK

I found it very useful, in giving an overview of the context and key recent developments, together with a framework for institutions to use when considering their own strategic priorities.

As well as stressing the continued role of partners such as JISC and the HEA, the document highlights the importance of institutions developing their own strategic approaches to enhancing learning, teaching and assessment through use of technology. It highlights 3 key areas of potential benefits: efficiency, enhancement and transformation.

It describes the “unique role” of Higher Education in “providing learners with the higher-order skills of evaluation, critical analysis and reflection, synthesis, problem-solving, creativity and thinking across discipline boundaries.”  However it recognises that in order for staff to be able to exploit technologies effectively to help develop these critical and analytical skills in their learners, they need support.

The support of senior management is also key. The Leadership Foundation for Higher Education and JISC’s strategic technology initiative  aims to help raise awareness amongst HE leaders of the potential of educational technology and how it can be integrated in institutional strategy.

A suggested framework is provided at the end of the document. The purpose of the framework is to “assist institutions in maximising the strategic benefits of technology”. It is designed to be used flexibly so that institutions can adapt it to suit their own needs. It provides suggested strategic priorities in 7 areas (2 of which have changed since the 2005 Strategy document):

• pedagogy, curriculum design and development
• learning resources and environments (was “Learning resources and networked learning”)
• lifelong learning processes and practices (was “Student support, progression and collaboration”)
• strategic management, human resources and capacity development
• quality
• research and evaluation
• infrastructure and technical standards.

For each area examples are provided of how technology might be used for strategic gain. These need to be fleshed out into realistic goals for each institution, but provide a useful outline.

The central message coming through was that our learners vary considerably in terms of familiarity with and usage of technology to support their learning.  Generally speaking learners mature in their use of technology during their learning journey (see the STROLL project) and tutors’ use of technologies is an important influence on them.

Other powerful findings from the research  included:

• there is evidence that the digital divide may be getting narrower but deeper, i.e. overall more people have access to more technology, but there are a small number who are significantly affected by lack of access
• many students are not sure how to use technology to aid their learning
• new learners tend to be conservative in their study habits, having fixed ideas about how technology will be used.
• learners have high expectations about the institution’s ICT infrastructure, that it will be robust, flexible and accessible

Although the research involved many students from different backgrounds and in a range of contexts, the research team’s recommendation was very much that results may not be representative of the wider student population, and that participants should be encouraged to research their own learner populations to help provide a localised and context-specific learner voice which helps to inform the institution’s strategy with regard to e-learning.

Several of the activities used in the workshop demonstrated use of some of the methodologies used in the research, which proved interesting, such as the “Interview plus” technique where learners may be asked to bring an artefact e.g. something they have created in a learning context, which provides a stimulus for the interviewer’s structured questions.

Also  we tried out a card-sorting exercise in which you provide a learner with a set of laminated cards with technologies written on them, and ask them to rank these in order of importance to them. While they are moving the cards around you talk to them about why they are putting them in that order. This proved to be a very effective exercise in the workshop, and my colleague Hilary Griffiths and myself discussed the potential use of such an activity in staff development workshops. Materials for this and other activities are available on the project wiki, under a Creative Commons licence which means they can be re-used or re-purposed for academic staff development. A range of video clips from interviews built on the card sort activity are available on the  E4L Interactive Case Studies website.

The team are still synthesizing data from the projects and I look forward to the final results.