The Project Management Guidelines explain the purpose of final reports. Fill in the information for the header, e.g. project acronym, version, and date. Prepare a cover sheet using the cover sheet template and attach to final report.
Note - 31st July is the deadline for this report to go to JISC
The final draft is being edited offline.
If you have any last minute thoughts or comments please paste them here or email Gill rather than embed them in the text
Final Thoughts here:
Please do not amend anything below this line or your changes may be lost!
Title Page
Project name/acronym, Final Report, author(s), contact person, date.
CAMEL Tangible Benefits of E-Learning
Final Report
Authors:
Gill Ferrell, JISC infoNet
Rhonda Riachi, Association for Learning Technology
Jacquie Kelly, JISC infoNet
Contact person: Gill Ferrell
Date: 31 July 2007
Table of Contents
List the topics covered and page numbers.
Acknowledgements
Note the name of the JISC programme, and that the project was funded by JISC. The project may also want to list the project partners and acknowledge any person or organisation that was helpful during the project or in writing the report.
The project partners would like to thank the JISC Learning and Teaching Committee for funding this project.
Partners: JISC infoNet, ALT, the Higher Education Academy, Subject Centres (mention each), university partners list
Executive Summary
Summarise highlights of the project (one page), including aims/objectives, overall approach, findings, achievements, and conclusions. The full report may include technical terms, but try to keep the executive summary in plain English.
Background
Summarise the background to the project (and how it builds on previous work) and the need it for it (and why it’s important).
[Justification for continued funding; Future funding/investment – new areas, embedding; Funding Councils, Government, university SMTs, practitioners, external bodies, community,]
The JISC Learning and Teaching Committee has been aware of the need to provide more evidence for the benefits of e-learning to the education sector. As more investment has been made in this area both by Government and institutions in recent years, the need for this evidence has grown, as have the requests from Government departments for this evidence. Notwithstanding the oft-cited difficulties of comparing different implementations of e-learning approaches and the apparent intangibility of some benefits attained, it has been clear that a case study approach could shed more light on this crucial area. With this in mind, the JISC Learning and Teaching Committee commissioned JISC infoNet and ALT to undertake a project that would draw out lessons from different e-learning approaches across a wide range of disciplines.
The project approach builds on a previous project funded under the HEFCE Leadership, Governance and Management Programme entitled CAMEL (Collaborative Approaches to the Management of e-Learning) http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/camel as explained in the section on 'methodology'. As in the previous project we have attempted to draw out lessons about what hasn't worked as well as intended as well as the successes.
The project is, we believe, unique to date as this is the first time any national bodies have looked at e-learning through the lens of subject disciplines and it represents a new form of engagement between the JISC and the Higher Education Academy. The resulting snapshot spans X different subject disciplines across old and new universities in three of the home nations.
Aims and Objectives
List the aim and objectives agreed at the start of the project, and note if they changed during the project.
Aim: to collate and share the tangible and real benefits to staff, learners and institutions of e-learning, through a discipline and academic department focus by using the CAMEL model devised by the Association for Learning Technology (ALT) and JISC infoNet.
The aim did not change during the project
Objectives (outputs)
To produce
§ up to 16 institutional case studies, with a subject discipline focus which identify tangible benefits of e-learning
§ a report on the CAMEL workshops and evaluation of the process, which will aim to identify any real or perceived weaknesses or threats of e-learning
The final outputs are 41 (check!) case studies from 17 institutions, so the project has exceeded our original target.
Methodology
Summarise the overall approach taken and why this approach was chosen over other options considered. Then describe the methodology in more detail. Depending on the project, this might include the methodology for research you carried out, technical design or development, evaluation, etc. Finally, note any specific issues that had to be addressed by the methodology, e.g. standards, interoperability, scalability, etc.
The original request from JLT for a set of case studies presupposed that one or more consultants would be appointed to interview people in a range of universities and write up the case studies. It was felt by JISC infoNet and the Programme Manager that more value might be derived for the sector by facilitating a set of inter-institutional exchanges whereby participants studied one another's practice and worked collaboratively (both face to face and online) to question challenge and reflect on the practice with the outputs being a set of peer-reviewed case studies and of course knowledge transfer between the institutions.
The CAMEL model appeared to be an ideal approach to facilitate this type of collaborative activity but the strict time constraints of the project meant we were unable to apply the model in its entirety so had to come up with a variant that would be achievable during the timescale (April-July 2007) . These constraints were noted at the start of the project and recorded as follows in the project proposal document:
- From the experience of ALT and JISC infoNet in running the first CAMEL project it is clear that the participants generally need longer to develop a good working relationship than is normally possible with short-term projects of this kind. The very tight timescale of this project and the need to produce outputs quickly means that there will not be time to “experiment” with the model.
- In order to meet JISC’s needs it will be necessary to focus on general e-learning topics that can be demonstrated to be of use both across departmental subject boundaries and across institutions. Through a discipline approach the aim is to draw out general issues related to e-learning wherever appropriate and to identify issues for academic departments, i.e. issues of strategic relevance to institutions and academic departments. It is important that the issues are not limited to particular subject areas, nor merely instances of individual practitioners trying something with small groups of learners. Suitable topics include e-assessment, e-portfolios, enhancements to VLEs, e-learning to support work-based learning, etc.
As time for his project was so short, and there was a lot of support from the JISC Programme Manager to apply the CAMEL exchange model, we did not evaluate other methods to deliver the outcomes beyond considering CAMEL and external commercial consultancy.
The role of specialist consultant to the project was taken on by the Academy as it was felt that a subject discipline focus would lend an interesting dimension to the project and that the use of existing subject centre networks would get round some of the issues of forming an effective and coherent community within such a short timescale. The original plan was to create 16 case studies following a set of four themed workshops. Rather than issue an open call, as in the previous CAMEL project, participants were recruited directly by the Academy subject centres.
The outline approach was as follows:
- Agree a template for the case studies to cover the key areas of interest and set up a wiki so that participants could showcase their practice online and begin drafting their case studies and reviewing other people's work
- Hold a series of four 24 hour workshops during which participants would question challenge and reflect on each others' practice
- Continue the exchanges online with participants working collaboratively to finalise the case studies (with particular emphasis on inter-disciplinary working)
- The Academy consultants and other Steering Group members to synthesise the outcomes for JISC and the wider community
The very short timescale was exacerbated by delays in recruiting partners which made it difficult to run exchange workshops at different times as had been envisaged. For this reason a large event was planned to which all project partners were invited thus enabling institutions to share across disciplines. This took place on 5th/6th July in York (although late in the day it became evident that not all participants could attend so a separate workshop was held in Bristol). The final workshop discussed the examples of tangible benefits of e-learning provided by each institutional partner in the form of case studies, using a discipline focus and a thematic focus. The institutions shared and discussed these examples in groups and edited their case studies in response to recommendations from the workshop.
Although the CAMEL model was not used in its fullest sense – i.e. a series of exchange meetings attended by all participants over a long period of time – we felt that real sharing did take place both in person at the workshops and online.
Implementation
Describe how you planned and implemented the project work and the activities it involved. Depending on the project, this might cover technical development, processes, how you conducted user studies, etc. Include any problems or issues that arose and how you handled them, where readers can learn from your experience. Tell the story of what you did rather than listing workpackages.
Governance and Management
- JISC infoNet assumed overall responsibility for governance of the project.
- ALT undertook the day-to-day management of project activities and workshop organisation, and evaluation of the process.
- The Higher Education Academy appointed consultants and recruited institutions through the Subject Centre network.
A steering group was established including
- JISC infoNet representation – Gill Ferrell and Jacquie Kelly
- ALT representation – Rhonda Riachi
- JISC e-learning programme manager - Paul Bailey (later Sarah Knight)
- HE Academy – Lawrence Hamburg, David Sadler
- CETIS – Sarah Holyfield
Activities and participants: The Subject Centres were invited to identify suitable institutions, and 17 institutions were subsequently invited by the Academy to participate in the workshops. The workshop aims were to discuss and share examples of tangible benefits and the real value of e-learning within their institutions. The workshops were themed to align with key priorities of the JISC e-learning programme. The institutions were supported via a group wiki to write case studies of these benefits before the workshop and to edit them after the workshop.
The Academy recommended three Subject Centre staff to act as consultants for the project, who in turn liaised with other subject centres to recruit the 17 institutions to the project using their email lists and through their contacts. The call went out later than planned (around the Easter break) so the confirmation of partners took longer than expected and required a lot of chasing, which unfortunately coincided with the start of the new academic term. All partners were required to sign and return the Project Initiation Document (PID).
The Steering Group met by phone conference in the set-up phase and a meeting with the three Subject Centre Consultants was convened on 10 May to agree the scope and methodology of the project.
A project start-up meeting was held in Birmingham on 17 May, to which all interested Subject Centre staff and representatives of institutional partners were invited. This date had been chosen on the advice of the Academy, as they were meeting at the same venue that day. In practice it was difficult for Subject Centre staff to attend both meetings, so some staff could not participate in the Start-up Meeting. Likewise few university partners were able to attend as many had not confirmed their participation at that stage.
Online collaboration
To aid sharing of materials a Wiki was set up for all partners to use (on PBwiki). The wiki contained all project documents, links to all members, and the case studies, which were gradually developed by the institutions with the support of the project team. Partners used the wiki in different ways:
§ Individuals developed case studies off-line in Word, circulated to their group, and posted the final draft onto the wiki
§ Groups collaboratively developed case studies offline in Word and posted final drafts
§ Individuals produced initial case studies in the wiki and group members then edited as and when
§ Groups worked collaboratively (f2f) online directly into wiki to produced near-finished final drafts
We found that the Wiki generally worked well, as:
§ it enabled separation of case studies into themes
§ editing by all partners was easy
§ the ability to include images enhanced the usability of the case studies
§ the notification facility was useful for individual teams and management of the project
§ it provided a back-up facility to download items as a zip file
§ it provided a central storage area for reference documents, list of partners and email addresses
§ we could use comment boxes to give individual feedback
Problems we encountered included:
§ there was no print facility
§ access was sometimes slow, which made 'live' editing online difficult
It was interesting that overall there was not so much collaborative writing as had been expected. There appeared to be a reluctance on the part of participants to share material until they felt it was in a final, polished form as if they were writing for publication. Authors did not invite comment on particular aspects of their draft case studies or ask others opinions on particular questions. Despite this many participants found that one of the most valuable aspects of the workshops was the time spent critiquing one another's case studies. However, even after the workshops, when there was general agreement about the value of such critiquing, very few participants actually posted comments or questions about the material on the wiki. Some of this may be down to the short timescales of the project but it is clear that this type of collaboration represented a considerable departure from the norm for most of the participants. The fact that the group members were prepared to question and challenge one another in a face-to-face environment yet were more reticent about doing so in an online community has obvious implications for their roles in fostering online communities amongst their students, and indeed one of the recommendations of this report is that academic staff need greater exposure to social and collaborative technologies in order to become more comfortable with them and to understand their potential for teaching and learning.
Although we originally indicated that we were more interested in medium to large scale initiatives we did ultimately involve some examples of individual practitioners working with single cohorts of students and this did produce some interesting outcomes including a lecturer whose philosophy podcasts topped the iTunes chart. Taken together the studies also amounted to more than the sum of their component parts e.g. a series of relatively small scale case studies from a very traditional institution in disciplines not noted for their innovative use of technology represents a major transformational shift for the institution overall.
Workshops were fewer than originally intended. This was owing to the short timescale for the project and the timing (the project overlapped with examination marking, examination board meetings, Subect Centre conferences and the Academy Annual Conference). Two workshops were held: a short one in Bristol for those members of the BMAF and Finance cluster who could not attend the York workshop, and one in York which involved an overnight stay with dinner together, attended by 40 people.
Bristol Workshop:
The Bristol Workshop, hosted by the Economics Subject Centre, was held to allow contributors who could not attend the York Workshop to discuss their case studies. John Sloman and Ros O'Leary, Director and Manager (respectively) of the Economics Subject Centre also provided advice and guidance, particularly on the Exeter case study. Pru Marriott represented Glamorgan Business School. Steve Probert and the the team identified a number of themes, which were brought to the York worshop, for discussion the following day.
York Workshop:
§ Five case study presentations were given on 5 July in a showcase format, based on the draft case studies that had been entered on the wiki by each institutional partner, which prompted some initial discussion of key themes. They were:
- E-assessment – Simon Wilkinson, Nottingham;
- Technology-Supported Learning Environments – Deirdre Burke, Wolverhampton;
- Using Technology to Teach – Julie Hughes, Wolverhampton, and Chris Hall, Swansea;
- Learning Resources and Activities – Carolyn Gibbon, Central Lancashire.
§ Participants then spent time getting to know one another over dinner and any remaining ice was broken by an exercise in making a camel using Origami paper
§ Day 2 (6 July) started with an open discussion on ‘who are the stakeholders for this project?’ and 'what types of evidence of tangible benefits can we cite?' . This was followed by group discussions, first by subject cluster and secondly by theme.
Post-workshop activity
All institutional partners were given one week to update their case studies based upon group discussions and other feedback. The consultants then mapped tangible benefits identified in the case studies onto the areas given in the case study template. The consultants and JISC infoNet (with ALT participating by phone) attended a one-day meeting to work on the format of the final report.
Outputs and Results
Explain the end result of the project work in an objective way. Depending on the project, it might include research results, findings, evaluation results, data, etc. If the project created something tangible like content, a portal, or software, describe it. Engage the reader, and avoid a long list of deliverables.
The outputs of the project are a set of 41 case studies of the tangible benefits of e-learning identified by subject discipline and by JISC e-learning programme activity areas. The case studies are currently available for viewing on a password protected wiki. Dissemination of the case studies would be greatly assisted by making them available in a searchable web format and the intention is to bid for further funds in order to achieve this.
Appendix X contains summaries of all of the case studies in the form of a 'cover sheet' that outlines the piece of work undertaken and indicates what types of tangible benefits are evidenced in the study under the following headings:
Feedback from the participating Academy subject centres indicates that they greatly value having a set of case studies that provide a range of subject discipline examples as well as being able to take ideas from cross-disciplinary examples.
Associated problems of implementing e-learning
Management implications
Recommendations to University Senior Managers
Recommendations to Funding Bodies, Academy and JISC
Partners had the opportunity to engage in cross-subject discipline discussions with other e-learning practitioners in a non-threatening environment.
A variation of the CAMEL model
Outcomes
In this section, assess the value of the project work. List project achievements against the aims and objectives set. Summarise project outcomes and their impact on the teaching, learning, or research communities. Indicate who will benefit from the work, how, and why. Also comment on what you learned that may be applicable to other projects, e.g. whether the methodology worked.
The goals and objectives set out in the project PID are listed below with a note on the extent to which each was met.
|
Goals
|
Objectives
|
Achievements
|
|
To use the a variant of the CAMEL exchange method amongst managers, lecturers and learning technology practitioners to assess evidence of tangible benefits of e-learning across a range of institutions and subject disciplines
|
· To facilitate workshops in order to share practice and issues
· To foster an open, trusting relationship between institutions
· To use readily available technology to facilitate a sharing culture
· To identify tangible benefits that could be applicable across a range of contexts and subject disciplines
· To show how developments at subject level support the institutional strategy
· To identify tangible benefits that will inform the development of future strategy and policy
· To complement the work of the institutional Benchmarking and Pathfinder Projects
|
3 workshops/meetings held: start-up meeting, Bristol and York.
Case study development was open to all.
Chatham House Rule applied.
Non-judgmental approach.
Project wiki set up and used for development and sharing of case studies.
JISC mail lists used for communication.
8 Academy Subject Centres involved together with 16 university partners.
41 case studies developed across a range of disciplines.
Case studies organised into themes.
Case studies mapped against a range of tangible benefits.
See appendix X for case studies.
See section X for discussion on findings that arose from the case studies.
Consideration of each case study (explicit question)
See section X / appendix Y
A range of tangible benefits, together with metrics, across a range of subject disciplines and cross-cutting themes have been identified. See section X
|
|
To disseminate good practice in the development of e-learning
|
· To produce case studies to inform the wider community about the benefits of e-learning identified
· To address topics of interest to the sector and of relevance to the JISC strategy
· To present papers to a range of national conferences
· Participants gain value from the visits
· Participants take action/change practice as a result of the project
|
See appendix
JISC e-learning themes used.
Metrics used
Future work: ALT-C 2008, HE Academy Conference 2008, Subject Centre conferences 2007/8, UCISA 2008, and possibly EUNIS 2008.
Case studies were updated after the workshops.
Final evaluation of project.
Final evaluation of project
|
|
To develop a Community of Practice with an awareness of the CAMEL methodology that exists beyond the life of the project
|
· Participants gain lasting value from the links made as a result of the project
· The CAMEL model used for this project is made available to help others organise similar initiatives
· CAMEL is used as a model by other Communities of Practice
· The project strengthens the JISC/HE Academy partnership and enhances appreciation of a subject-based approach within the JISC.
|
This could be guaged through a follow-up evaluation possibly through the Subject Centres.
The CAMEL Model is available at
(Too early to tell)
(Too early to tell)
|
The project has certainly met its operational objectives and, despite delays in the early stages, the range of project outputs has far exceeded expectations. What is more important, however, is what we can extrapolate from this about the state and value of e-learning in the sector as a whole.
The research question itself, i.e. to provide some evidence of the tangible benefits of e-learning, could be described as too vague and ill-defined to be likely to produce the desired results. The very open-endedness of the question did however seem to lend itself to a particular approach that has resulted in a surprising diversity of data and has produced overall a much richer picture of activity in the sector than might be anticipated from such a short-term project.
The picture we have, whilst not derived from an entirely random selection of vignettes since there are particular disciplinary threads, is very much a snapshot of what is going on in the HE sector at the present time. In attempting to make sense of the diversity of the case studies we devised a graphic representation that we believe holds true for tangible benefits in the sector as a whole.
GRAPH [NB: Steve has reversed the graph now! x and y axes other way round]
The x axis of the graph shows the type of tangible benefit demonstrated and the sort of metrics that can be used to evaluate such benefits. What maps equally well onto that axis is the type of problem the institution is trying to solve and the rationale for doing so. What we find here is that a well-defined problem such as how to assess large cohorts of students within a tight time-frame can be measured against a very specific and readily quantifiable set of metrics and that it is relatively easy to put accurate figures on time and cost savings. The rationale for undertaking this kind of change is entirely rational and to some extent self-evident. Towards the middle of the scale we find activities where the intended benefit is to improve learners’ understanding of a particular subject – in other words a pedagogically driven change where the tangible benefits can be measured in terms of course or module pass rates or other direct measures of achievement. At the far end of the scale we encounter approaches intended to address far ‘softer’ and more complex issues of student engagement. The rationale behind such activities is often no more than the vocational commitment (call it professionalism or gut instinct) of the academic concerned in the first instance and evidence of success may be entirely anecdotal for some time.
The y axis shows how the ‘e-approaches’ differ in nature from those that seek to automate existing practices through those that add increased value to those that ultimately seek to transform the learning process. It can thus be seen that the approaches clustered in the bottom left quadrant are those that represent the clearest return on investment (ROI) and it is easily possible to assess their scalability and the value for money represented by further investment. Those in the top right quadrant however are more research and development (R&D) in nature and in their present form may represent overheads without any immediately obvious return. This is the kind of risk taking that is necessary to keep the sector moving forward and we can anticipate that these activities will move down towards the bottom left as they become more established.
It is important to note that we need a balance of activities in all of these quadrants if we are to see real progress. For example we may already be able to assess students quickly and cheaply using technology but if we assess them and find they are failing we need projects further up the R&D scale in order to address that.
Need graphs for 3 subject clusters to discuss disciplinary differences.
It is important to note the differences between the different subject disciplines in terms of technological and pedagogical innovation. What appears well embedded in one subject area may be quite innovative in another for instance the e-mentoring work in the Philosophical and Religious Studies cluster is quite radical within that discipline. To some extent this simply reflects the extent to which practitioners in some disciplines have needed to engage with technology as a routine part of day-to-day life for some time whereas other areas have not needed to engage to the same extent and rely on a few ‘champions’ to spread new ideas. On another level there are some quite deep rooted cultural issues to be addressed.
There is a feeling that in many cases staff in the Humanities have actively resisted the use of institutional VLEs but are now beginning to engage with certain types of ‘social software’. One participant described it as ‘the difference between e-learning as a factory or a city’. Humanities wants the e-learning city i.e. to be able to wander at will and choose which shop to go into rather than be part of a prescriptive process. This has particular implications for the future of e-learning as we are reaching a point where many of the barriers previously preventing participation by this group are being removed. The issues that arose with the use of monolithic VLEs may not exist in the web 2.0 era and beyond. The learning curve in terms of IT skills required at ‘entry level’ is much shallower and the tools themselves can support a much greater variety of pedagogic approaches.
It is interesting that the project participants did not feel the need to get bogged down in any kind of debate about what does and doesn't constitute e-learning and this is perhaps indicative of the fact that the sector as a whole is starting to move beyond its initial fixation with the technology to concentrate more on how it supports learning. However one might define e-learning it is very evident that the appropriate use of technology is having a significant impact in terms of improving the quality of UK education. This snapshot of e-learning looks very different to how it might have looked five years ago when much effort was concentrated on creating e-content instead of content on paper. All of the case studies exhibit a broadly socio-constructivist approach (with the exception of the behaviourist model underlying the XX virtual patient).
The key areas where we identified tangible benefits from the appropriate application of technology were:
Cost Savings/Resource Efficiency
Probably the most readily quantifiable cost savings were identified in the area of e-assessment where automated marking of exams for large cohorts of students now takes seconds rather than hours.
Recruitment and Retention
Hull courses that wouldn't otherwise be possible; Susan Stuart iTunes
Skills and Employability
Labyrinth; gaming
Achievement
Widening Participation and Social Justice
The tangible benefits identified by the case studies were wide ranging; from direct, easily measured benefits to students (for example enabling swift feedback on assessment) to those that are sometimes difficult to measure with longer term payback (for example external recognition for students, staff and the university). Chart X illustrates the richness of information gleaned from the case studies. Something here about the chart - make clear that axis not value, relate to Gartner Hype cycle. Many of the benefits relate directly to aspects of the UK Government's strategy for education - ref - notibly ..........
Special needs, medical conditions and distance learning
e-Learning as an enabler was identified by Glasgow Divinity, Swansea and Hull
Glasgow Divinity showed that students with special needs found e-Learning supported their studies to such an extent that they had a 100% pass rate. UK strategy, EU strategy, numbers of special needs students nationally, how could be supported thro' mainstream education thro' imaginative and consistant use of e-learning.
Swansea lecturer used podcasting to support students and was amazed that her podacsts reached number 1 with iTunes. Her work, and hence The University of Wales at Swansea, gained international recognition. It will be interesting to see if the publicity has an effect on recruitment.
Hull (WHIP case study) used e-learning to support students prior to, and during, their placement. This enabled them to be better prepared for the time that they spent working as interns attached to MPs at Westminster. Due to the success, the system will be rolled out to support internships in Brussels.
Student performance, pass rates and retention
Glasgow, Sheffield Hallam and Wolverhampton identified tangible benefits in this area.
Waiting for longitudinal data
External (International) Recognition
Sheffield Hallam used digital video Resources being used intenationally.
A Glasgow University lecturer was amazed that her podacsts reached number 1 with iTunes. Her work, and hence Glasgow University, gained international recognition. It will be interesting to see if the publicity has an effect on recruitment. http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1972016,00.html
Knowledge Transfer and Community engagement
Sheffield Hallam - worked with international communities in producing video case studies
Wolverhampton - Resources result from collaboration between lecturer, students and local community. The work has contributed to community cohesion by the students working with the community in the production of the resources (reports of visits). 'One strand of reporting contributes to social justice by exploring the experience of congregants and their interaction with other communities.'
Hull, Malso
Hull, Med - new work placements
Sheffield Hallam, e-portfolios + visual methods.
Re-vitalising and developing staff
Being involved in applying e-learning can be invigorating for many, resulting perhaps in an increased awareness of students' requirements and better teaching. New skills are required for developing e-learning materials and supporting students in online environments - aligns with strategy policy on Teaching qualification for (new) lecturers, + Lifelong Learning UK aiming to develop standards for a 'licence to practice' - mainly in skills-based areas.
Equiping Graduates to be 'fit for purpose'
Professional expectations of employers and need to provide students/garduates who are independent and adapted to workplace situations. MEDEV case studies, Edinburgh Virtual Farm, Newcastle e-Doctoring, ivimeds, ivinurs, ivivet development
Hull (WHIP)
Glamorgan simulation of how businesses operate.
Note - should we ensure that each case study has a mention here? To be fair to all
Drivers
Research into the tangible benefts of e-learning would not be complete without investigating the drivers behind some of these developments. Although all universities have an e-learning strategy or embedded in their Teaching and Learning Strategy, many innovations are still the province of the individual striving to improve their teaching practice, the learning opportunities for their students, research or solve some of the problems that they face. The time invested in these projects is frequently personal time. So the drivers are often personal with the strategies enabling the developments to take place rather than being the drivers themselves. However, strategic support is necessary - at least to demonstrate that innovations in teaching and learning are important to the university. Some implementations, for example e-assessment, appear at first to be driven by the need to support a growing number of students and the need to save time, but closer reading of the case study shows that the commitment by the lecturer is due to a professional interest in improving the quality and timeliness of feedback - assessment for learning.
Some aspects of e-learning are starting to become embedded into practice but champions still need to be empowered in order for innovation to occur. As chart X shows, some innovations can be expensive with long term payback, coupled with a difficulty in obtaining quantitative analysis. These types of projects require time to become stable albeit with continuous refinement of the model and improvements in the implementation.
Professor Drummond Bone, president of Universities UK, said the survey gave "further evidence of the importance of the HE sector's knowledge transfer activities to business and the economy". Survey = Higher Education - Business and Community Interation (HE-BCI) survey
"Continued interaction between higher education and business and industry is crucial to the long term success of the UK economy as we face growing overseas competition. Universities UK would like to see increased funding in the next round of the Higher Education Innovation Fund to support this valuable collaboration," he said. http://education.guardian.co.uk/businessofresearch/story/0,,2129060,00.html
Conclusions
Briefly summarise any conclusions that can be drawn from the project work.
Implications
Consider the future implications of your work and how others can build on it. What are the implications for other professionals in the field, for users, or for the community? What new development work could be undertaken to build on your work or carry it further?
mention e-mentoring in humanities (eg religious studies at Wlv); for certain disciplines these approaches are very innovative - define different levels of innovation within a subject; Govt (former DfES) e-learning strategy and personalisation issues;
Use of technology that was not originally developed for education - appropriateness of technology. Yet podcasting and iTunes not developed for education but have demonstrable benefits in T&L.
Recommendations (optional)
List any specific recommendations for the teaching, learning, or research communities.
If we are to avoid being in a position of constantly playing catch-up we need to do more analysis of the kinds of technologies learners are using and the virtual social environments students engage in as part of their everyday lives. All academics need exposure to current technologies and some ideas about how they can be applied to learning and teaching. This should be an essential part of all PGCE courses. We also need to look and plan further ahead. One participant in the project noted that 'Technology horizon scanning seemed too wacky and far-off to be of relevance to me until I participated in this project. I now see the value of thinking about this.'
References
List any references to the work of others you have cited (e.g. articles, reports, studies, standards), and any explanatory notes. Provide URLs for any materials available on the web.
NB quotations above (Gartner, etc)
Appendixes (optional)
Include any appendixes that readers will find helpful to understand the work described or the results. For example, include a questionnaire if you conducted a survey, or technical details that support technical development carried out. A glossary of acronyms and technical terms is often helpful.
Cover sheets of case studies to go here
URL to case studies on web goes here
JISC Project Management Framework
22 December 2003
Comments (5)
Chris Hall said
at 3:50 pm on Jul 17, 2007
We've managed to add video to our case study on podcasting as well as print to pdf
http://camelbelt.pbwiki.com/Wales+at+Swansea+using+technology+to+teach+(podcasting)+case+study
David Gill said
at 9:14 pm on Jul 17, 2007
There were problems generating pdfs from the wiki - though pbwiki also note this as an issue.
David Gill said
at 3:34 pm on Jul 18, 2007
I think it was the Glasgow philosophy podcast that got to number 1 in iTunes ... much as I would love to have that honour for a Greek archaeology contribution.
pru marriot said
at 10:21 am on Aug 2, 2007
The Glamorgan case study on e-assessment reported how technology has be used to improve students’ learning and performance. For example, the immediate on-line feedback made a contribution towards developing their motivation and engagement with the subject through self evaluation and reflection.
pru marriot said
at 11:01 am on Aug 2, 2007
The Glamorgan case study on e-assessment is currently included on the wiki as an attachment only. Is this ok?
You don't have permission to comment on this page.