Project InformationProject InformationProject InformationProject InformationProject Title (and acronym) Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships (InStePP)Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships (InStePP)Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships (InStePP)Start Date July 2011 End Date July 2013Lead Institution Oxford Brookes UniversityOxford Brookes UniversityOxford Brookes UniversityPartner Institutions Institute for Leadership and Management (ILM), Association for

Learning Technology (ALT, ELESIGInstitute for Leadership and Management (ILM), Association for Learning Technology (ALT, ELESIGInstitute for Leadership and Management (ILM), Association for Learning Technology (ALT, ELESIG

Project Director Richard FrancisRichard FrancisRichard FrancisProject Manager & contact details

Richard Francis, Media Workshop, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Oxford OX3 0BPRichard Francis, Media Workshop, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Oxford OX3 0BPRichard Francis, Media Workshop, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane Campus, Oxford OX3 0BP

Project website https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/Homehttps://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/Homehttps://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/HomeProject blog and Twitter ID https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/pages/viewrecentblogposts.action?

key=instepphttps://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/pages/viewrecentblogposts.action?key=instepphttps://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/pages/viewrecentblogposts.action?key=instepp

Design Studio home page http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/50732755/InStePP%20projecthttp://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/50732755/InStePP%20projecthttp://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/50732755/InStePP%20project

Programme Name Developing Digital LiteraciesDeveloping Digital LiteraciesDeveloping Digital LiteraciesProgramme Manager Paul Bailey, Sarah DaviesPaul Bailey, Sarah DaviesPaul Bailey, Sarah Davies

0. Summary

The JISC Developing Digital Literacies programme was a welcome opportunity to foster mechanisms for

student-staff partnerships to enhance digital literacy. Over two years the InStePP project developed and tested systems and processes for the recruitment, development, support and recognition through

professional accreditation of work experience, of digitally literate students, termed ePioneers, who worked with staff on mutually beneficial enhancements to the digital learning environments at Brookes.

InStePP operated at a more modest scale than had been projected and should be seen as a prototype that has yet to achieve its full potential. The foundations have been laid, however, for a scheme of staff-

student partnerships that can make a significant impact on educational practice, especially in developing digital literacy. Heavy initial investment of staff time was necessary to set the scheme up but changes in

team roles and responsibilities have meant that the ongoing operational costs are substantially lower. With current resourcing the scheme is sustainable at its current level of recruitment.

ePioneers derive great personal benefit from partnering with staff. Through work experience they gain substantial enhancements to their employability. Their ePioneer experience gives them opportunities to

engage in a reflective process of continuous learning, which can be transformative. This contributes to their critical self-awareness and personal literacy, as well as to their digital literacy. ePioneers are

empowered by having their ‘voice’ heard, gaining the sense of being a valued part of the wider academic community and of contributing to the improvement of digital literacies for the whole university.

ePioneers are challenged and motivated by the process of role reversal inherent in partnership with staff.There is material evidence of ‘mutual benefit’ in partnership, students and staff partners alike testifying to

the rewards they gain from it. The main rewards are the joy of creative mutual endeavour and a sense of pride and achievement in the value of the outcomes of their work to the wider institution. Involvement in

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

the project increased communication and understanding between different members of the institution and clarification of their roles and perspectives.

Universities and institutions of further education have much to gain from students being actively engaged in helping to transform the digital learning landscape. Students in partnership with staff can motivate staff

to adopt new digital learning and teaching practices. Impact on practice is potentially broader than just the use of technology: student partners help staff to hear the student voice, gain insights into learners’

perspectives, and think differently about learner needs. Perhaps the key benefits of the InStePP approach are the fresh perspectives and creative new practices

that are brought to bear on educational issues. It may be possible to apply a similar approach to the development of other graduate attributes, such as critical self-awareness and personal literacy.

The principal recommended improvements to the scheme are that ePioneer recruitment should be doubled, that ‘commissions’ should match the tempo of student life, i.e. have achievable milestones that

fit within the academic calendar and that ePioneers need proactive support from a staff coach, to help them manage the challenges of role reversal.

InStePP produced processes and tools that should transfer with minimal adjustment to other institutions in the post-16 educational sector.

1. What are the headline achievements of your project?

The project set out to formulate, resource, pilot and successfully implement a model for staff-student partnership for the reciprocal development of student and staff digital literacies, which had been

informed by stakeholder analysis and previous baseline learner experience of elearning research (JISC 2009 & Sharpe, Beetham et al 2009). Iterative implementation of improvements to the model has

resulted in a sustainable, institutionally supported and potentially scalable framework, built on experiential evidence of resource requirements and positive evaluation of outcomes, albeit on a smaller

scale than originally proposed. There was a broad uptake by students, though in lower numbers than originally intended. ePioneers were recruited from all four Faculties, with more coming from the

computing and business subject areas than from the humanities or health and life sciences. Commissions were raised by staff in all four Faculties and in two Directorates.

1.1 The scheme was put through one pilot and one full iteration during the lifetime of the project and has since been further revised. It continues to run in 2013-14 and plans are in preparation for it to be

scaled up from 2014-15. A full evaluation was carried out (Benfield & Pavlakou 2013), the results of which were presented to Senior Management at the University’s Academic Enhancement and

Standards Committee in October 2013. Senior management have acknowledged that ePioneering is a sustainable model for engaging students in the development of digital literacy and have demonstrated

their commitment by underwriting the continued allocation of human resource for the current level of recruitment and requesting recommendations for the scheme to be up-scaled from 2014. The

recommendations will be submitted in January 2014 for sponsorship in the second phase of the

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

Strategy for the Enhancement of the Student Experience (Oxford Brookes University 2010) from 2014-15.

1.2 By its nature as a voluntary partnership between students and staff, InStePP has taken to a deeper level, than for example via student representation on committees or survey consultations, the ways in

which Oxford Brookes gathers information about students' expectations and experiences of the digital environment in disciplines. Brookes-specific questions reflecting our generic definition of digital literacy

will be included in a UK pilot of the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE: http://nsse.iub.edu/) to be run in 2014, but richer qualitative data than this will be needed for the

characterisation of digital literacies in disciplines. We are already seeing digital literacies becoming confused with skills, the measurement and training of which are comparatively easy; over-reliance on

survey data may hasten this trend.

InStePP has demonstrated that there is value in increasing our efforts to engage students and staff in

experiential learning opportunities such as those offered by ePioneer partnerships, in that they help the University collectively to gain greater insight into the nature of digital literacies situated in practice. That

is a goal towards which InStePP will continue to aim. Prior to InStePP, programme development teams (PDTs) were required to map curricular opportunities for the development of digital literacies in

disciplines onto programme outcome specifications; good practice exemplars of activity and course design continue to be shared among PDTs but a deeper understanding is sought of how to make more

explicit for students the sometimes tacit expectations of discipline-specific digital literacy development. It is hoped that a closer alignment of InStePP staff-student partnerships with programme DL mappings

will facilitate this (see section 8).

1.3 Much was learnt about the nature and scope of consultancy relationships valued by staff and

students. Considerable time was spent in the early stages of the project seeking to establish, through stakeholder consultation, the likely settings or contexts in which partnerships would be valued and the

roles student ePioneers could productively perform to the benefit of both parties. Contrary to expectations at the outset of the project, the contexts in which ePioneers were asked to work were not

limited to specific subject areas (e.g. computing and technology) or to use of the University’s learning management system, Moodle. It was originally thought that the transition to a new LMS, which

coincided with the start of the project, would be the main catalyst for staff to engage with ePioneers but this turned out to be true in only a minority of cases. It was envisaged that interactions between staff

and students were likely to be of a troubleshooting or problem-solving nature and of short duration. In practice, the wide-ranging nature and scope of the partnership requests received from staff and the

practicalities of connecting staff with students, soon led to partnership initiation being consolidated into a form of commissioning, which has since become the norm. Commissions have come from varied, and

sometimes unanticipated quarters, frequently not from staff directly involved in teaching.

1.4 A set of ePioneer partnership roles and associated role cards (https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/

instepp/1.+ePioneer+Role+Cards) has been developed and tested on a range of commissions; these

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

are now used to negotiate clear and achievable commission outcomes and to tailor support needs. Four of the roles, trainer, resource creator, mentor and researcher, have proven to be useful descriptors of

ePioneer activity; the fifth, entrepreneur, has been dropped because it was incompatible with the voluntary nature of the scheme. Together, the performing of one or more ePioneer roles for the

fulfilment of a commission in partnership with staff is referred to in the scheme as a consultancy.

1.5 Valuable lessons were learnt about how ePioneer support needs vary with diverse roles, contexts

and motivations. Commissions offer authentic, relatively low-risk, work-based learning contexts, in which staff-student roles are partially inverted, giving students the chance to practise and seek to

demonstrate professionally endorsed consultancy skills to enhance their employability. This is one of the attractions of the InStePP scheme. However, as the evaluation evidence shows, the challenges of

role reversal are considerable. Undergraduate study offers few opportunities for setting, rather than following, goals and agendas, for organising other people’s time, as well as your own, or for holding

others to one’s own deadlines, rather than meeting the deadlines of others. All ePioneers receive consultancy training from the Careers Centre but the first two cohorts were given only limited

subsequent coaching and mentoring in this area, which is likely to have contributed to a high dropout rate (see interviews and feedback in evaluation report). Actions taken to address this have included:

measures to ensure tighter definition and earlier availability of commissions, more flexible delivery of the Future Consultants training to ensure all ePioneers can take advantage of it, the formalising of a

coaching relationship with a member of the project team, peer mentoring of new recruits by more experienced ePioneers, the appointment of a communications intern and more targeted, better

advertised recruitment and training (see section 4 below).

1.6 A concomitant outcome of these enhancements to the scheme is evidence of a significant impact for

participating students not only on their digital literacies but also on their development of a second graduate attribute, namely critical self-awareness and personal literacy (see p31 of evaluation report

and Google Tubes case study: https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/Google+Tubes).

1.7 Stakeholder interviews and analysis of feedback have produced evidence of the reciprocal benefits

of the consultancy model for the digital literacies of both students and staff (see p40 of evaluation report). From the outset, it has been impressed upon staff that their relationship with ePioneers should

be mutually beneficial, not exploitative. The call for commissions is issued before the end of the academic year preceding ePioneer recruitment in September. Guidance on formulating commission

requests is given and successful examples provided. A structured form has been developed for staff to articulate their commission requests, which once submitted populate a Google spreadsheet;

commissions must then be approved by the project director before they can be offered to ePioneers. ePioneers choose their commissions, rather than staff choosing ePioneers. These mechanisms have

helped to manage staff expectations of working with ePioneers by ensuring that the principles of ePioneer partnership are understood and adhered to and that the majority of commissions embody

these principles. Predictably, perceived benefits are greatest where commissions have been completed

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

successfully and the sharing of the positive feedback generated in these instances has helped the scheme to achieve credibility among staff.

The benefits afforded by the successful completion of commissions need not be limited to the parties directly involved. Some of the commissions produce very transferable outputs (e.g. GoogleTubes

commission: https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/Google+Tubes), which increases their impact. For example, the GoogleTubes resources may be of value to many staff teams in and beyond the

University. Where appropriate, as in this case, transferable outputs are being made more easily discoverable and sharable by being deposited in the University’s digital assets repository, RADAR

(https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/access/home.do).

A further benefit for faculty staff, not directly evidenced in the evaluation, is that it provides a vehicle for

situated digital literacy development: staff are able to request commissions at the point and time of need. The roots of this approach to digital literacy development at Brookes go back to the TLTP3

EFFECTS project, 2001 (http://www2.plymouth.ac.uk/ed/ELT%20documents/EFFECTS/Bid.pdf), which the InStePP project director helped to pilot. Furthermore, the scheme operates through a network of

Principal Lecturers for the Student Experience (PL SEs), who are aware of TEL priorities in their faculties and assist in the translation of these into commissions and in the local recruitment of

ePioneers. An allocation of time to the PL SEs to perform these tasks was part of the matched institutional funding for this project. The PL SEs report to Associate Deans for the Student Experience

(AD SEs), who in turn report to the Pro VC for the Student Experience; this governance structure was set up to implement the SESE.

1.8 One of the headline achievements of InStePP is the creation of new pathways to recognition and accreditation of the work experience students gain as ePioneers. These are of two types:

· Enhancement of employability. The project created a new career development programme for student volunteers, leading to award of the Future Consultants Certificate, which maps onto the

professional accreditation framework of the ILM and has been endorsed by them. The Future Consultants programme was developed and is run by the Careers Centre in conjunction with

the Work-based Qualifications Project Manager, Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. It is compulsory for all ePioneers to attend the taught component of the

programme, which is offered both as a one-day, face-to-face workshop and in a blended online/coached mode for those unable to attend the workshop. ePioneers have the option of seeking

to attain the FC certificate, which is conditional upon the submission of a portfolio of evidence of achievement of the appropriate competencies.

· Academic credit. The experience gained as an ePioneer can be accredited towards fulfilment of the assessment requirements of a work-based independent study module, provided this option

is available on the ePioneer’s programme and is appropriate to their current stage of study.

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

1.9 The success of the InStePP model won over sceptics, notably in IT Services, who doubted a voluntary scheme was workable. The University promotes an eclectic range of work experience

opportunities and student engagement activities, as our stakeholder analysis demonstrated, some of which are paid and others voluntary. One of the strands of the University’s strategy for the student

experience is the establishment of a consistent framework within which to describe and support scalable, sustainable schemes such as InStePP (http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/pese/

projects/7-student-engagement/index.html). This framework acknowledges that voluntary and remunerated activities can and should co-exist and proposals have been drawn up which set out criteria

to determine when it is appropriate for student work to be voluntary and when it should be paid; the proposals were directly informed by the InStePP team.

1.10 The InStePP partnership model is broadly transferable to any educational institution in the post-16 sector which places high value on hearing the student voice, on engaging with students as change

agents who bring fresh perspectives and new practices to bear on digital literacy development for the enhancement of the student experience. It has produced processes and tools that should transfer with

minimal adjustment (see section 5 below). A key factor for success will be an organisational culture in which the challenge of role reversal will be welcomed and which encourages active, collaborative

learning and cross-disciplinary working. Running InStePP at Oxford Brookes prompted increased communication and understanding between different members of the institution and clarification of their

roles and perspectives. It brought together students and staff from different parts of the organisation in what the evaluators term the “grand endeavour” of improving the digital landscape in partnership.

2.What were the key drivers for undertaking the project?

2.1 Strategic commitment to development of graduate attributes, employability and student

engagement

One of the primary motives for the InStePP project was to explore the potential benefits of bringing

together three strands of the University’s Strategy for Enhancing the Student Experience (SESE), namely graduate attributes, employability and student engagement. The first two are inextricably

linked and are expressed as goals: graduate attributes are statements about what we want our future neighbours and leaders to be like, “the desirable capabilities we expect students will need in order to

translate and apply their discipline knowledge to new contexts after graduation” (Sharpe 2013). The third strand, student engagement, is a means to achieving this end: by encouraging students to take

an active part in shaping their learning experiences and environments, we provide them with opportunities to acquire and demonstrate the employable attributes that the University’s graduates

should possess.

In its Strategy for Enhancing the Student Experience 1 (SESE 2010, p.5), Oxford Brookes University

sets out five Graduate Attributes, one of which is digital and information literacy, which is defined as

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

“The functional access, skills and practices necessary to become a confident, agile adopter of a range of technologies for personal, academic and professional use. To be able to use

appropriate technology to search for high-quality information; critically to evaluate and engage with the information obtained; reflect on and record learning, and professional and personal

development; and engage productively in relevant online communities.”

The strategy makes a number of commitments in the areas of student engagement and employability.

These are listed below, with key statements highlighted in italics.

· The University is committed to developing further opportunities for students to become more effectively engaged in the academic life of the University, both through the formal relationship with the Student Union and the day-to-day contact between staff and students, individually and in groups.

· 4.3.4 Specifically, […] we will work with the Students’ Union to identify opportunities for students to contribute to academic development projects, as members of working groups, organising focus groups or carrying out research, as appropriate.

· We will work with a range of units within the University, including the SU, to design and introduce a number of student-led and extra curricular initiatives, which will develop and enhance personal and leadership skills and attributes for employability. These initiatives will include volunteering and community work in and around Oxford. We will seek to introduce student mentoring where possible across the University.

· 4.3.6 We will provide the digital environments and technologies that enable students to easily create and support their own groups and networks comprising Brookes students and staff and relevant groups and individuals.

The InStePP ePioneer scheme is fully aligned with the goals and commitments stated above.

2.2 Development of staff Digital Literacies

The JISC-funded research into the learner experiences of elearning carried out prior to the InStePP

bid highlighted that much student use of digital technologies in the curriculum takes place ‘under the radar’, i.e. without the tutor’s knowledge or guidance. There is a tacit and sometimes mistaken

assumption that students can transform digital capabilities from their personal and social lives into effective discipline-specific digital literacies. Furthermore, some staff who would consider themselves

outside the core of TEL enthusiasts (Sharpe, Beetham et al, 2009; Gourlay, 2011; NUS, 2010) perceive rapid technological change as a process they do not own and thus as difficult to assimilate

into the curriculum in pedagogically sound ways. (cf. the Digidol project at Cardiff University: http://digidol.cardiff.ac.uk/) Students on the other hand are strongly influenced in their use of technology by

tutor recommendations and course requirements (cf. JISC LEP2) and expect the digital environments and tools with which they are provided by the institution to be adequate and appropriate.

It was therefore important from the outset that InStePP should seek to development the digital literacies of staff as well as students in tandem, so as to bring the DL practices and expectations of

both parties out into the open. The proposed model of partnership aligned itself with the University’s PETAL initiative (Peer Enhancement of Teaching, Assessment and Learning), the key mechanism for

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

continuing personal and professional development, which was being redesigned at the time. PETAL processes are intended to ensure that practice focuses on the five core graduate attributes, “employs

up-to date learning tools and technologies” (SESE, 2010-15) and includes a significant role for students, in informing areas of focus for enhancement, in working with staff to bring enhancements

about and in evaluating the benefits of change. (ref. https://sites.google.com/a/brookes.ac.uk/petal/aboutpetal). Entering into partnership with a student ePioneer was promoted to staff as an exemplar

PETAL activity in annual review planning guidelines. (ref. https://sites.google.com/a/brookes.ac.uk/petal/workbasedlearning/student-engagement)

2.3 Moving from generic to discipline-specific digital literacies

A further driver for the InStePP partnership model was to obtain examples of specific learning

opportunities for digital literacy development, contextualised in disciplines. Brookes has an agreed generic definition of digital literacy, which was informed by Beetham and Sharpe’s (2011) framework

on learning literacy development and which it has adopted in the language used to characterise strategic enhancements of the student experience. The graduate attributes for digital literacy at

Brookes are defined as:

“the functional access, skills and practices necessary to become a confident, agile adopter of a range

of technologies for personal, academic and professional use” (SESE 2010-15)

Programme level specifications for development of graduate attributes (including Digital Literacy)

Within the SESE portfolio, a University project to map graduate attributes onto programme specifications was under way at time of the InStePP bid. Using the definition above as the desired

outcome, programme development teams were asked to make explicit in their programme specifications what opportunities exist for students to acquire this and the other graduate attributes in

the context of their disciplines. This work is now complete (link to OCSLD site). However, the mappings within disciplines are at present richer in examples of Information Literacy than of Digital

Literacy (illustrate using Brookes definition). Programme design teams are not always fully aware of the demands for digital literacy placed on students by their curricula and course designs. Though their

relevance is not contested, the responsibility for embedding graduate attributes into the curriculum is also not always accepted by the subject specialists, an issue noted by other projects in the DDL

programme strand.

In this respect, InStePP had much in common with the aims of the SEDA Small Grants Project ‘Digital

Literacies: A Study of Perspectives and Practices of Academic Staff’ (Saffron Powell & Varga-Atkins, 2013), which set out to “find ways of helping staff enhance their students’ learning experience by

embedding development of their digital literacies in their subject discipline.” Like Saffron Powell & Varga-Atkins, we wanted to “understand how digital practices emerge, what helps and what hinders

their emergence” and envisaged that this could be achieved through staff-student partnerships which could then inform curriculum development and course design practice.”

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

2.4 A further driver has been to find out whether the Brookes’ definition of digital literacy, with its emphasis on the confident, agile exercise of functional competencies, is couched in language which

is adequate and relevant to students’ own descriptions of their digital capabilities. Case study evidence suggests that it is. The semi-autonomous exercise of DL competencies as consultants

enabled several ePioneers to reflect on the development of their digital capabilities using language reminiscent of the Brookes definition. However, the evidence also suggests that ePioneers who were

required to negotiate between alternative paths towards successful completion of staff commissions were also moving beyond literacy into the domain of digital fluency (cf Baume 2012).

3. Describe the educational/organisational context in which you undertook your project

3.1 Oxford Brookes describes itself as:

“a student-centred University, committed to the creation of inclusive and participative learning communities, a strong relationship between teaching and research, and the importance of continuing professional development for all staff involved in supporting student learning.” (SESE 2010-15)

The majority of courses are delivered in blended, on-campus mode, with a small but growing number

of courses offered in online distance mode. A brief description of the digital learning environment is appropriate here, since it was envisaged as being the main context in which the InStePP scheme

would operate. A well-established suite of digital learning environments and tools, known collectively as Brookes Virtual, is used on the vast majority of courses. Staff and student support and

development for Brookes Virtual is provided centrally by elearning advisors, system developers and graphic designers in Media Workshop and by educational developers in the Oxford Centre for Staff

and Learning Development (OCSLD); a network of learning technologists (Digital media and eLearning Developers) extends into the Faculties and is co-ordinated by the central Media Workshop

team. Template-based VLE sites, integrating core course information, resources, learning activities and assessments are created for all validated programmes and modules, both undergraduate and

taught postgraduate, with automated enrolment for all registered students. Ad hoc online course environments can be created to staff specifications by the Media Workshop and Faculty learning

technologists.

In July 2011, when the InStePP project began, the University had finished scoping and was about to

pilot a new VLE platform, based on Moodle, in the 2011-12 academic year, in preparation for the institution-wide rollout in September 2012. The change was a radical but long-awaited one, signalling

the end of a decade-long relationship with the previous vendor and a new approach to infrastructure provision via a third-party hosting service. Furthermore, it took place during a period of extensive re-

structuring which deeply affected central IT services, senior academic governance and faculty administration. The institutional context in which the project began was therefore significantly different

from that in which it had been conceived. Working relations between educational technologists and

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

IT developers were profoundly altered, as were role descriptions and, in many cases, the role holders themselves. New academic and project management structures came into operation which merged

Academic Standards with Learning and Teaching into a single decision-making body and numerous learning and teaching initiatives, including the strategy for technology-enhanced learning (previously

the responsibility of the InStePP project director), were unified into a single strategy for the student experience, under the sponsorship of the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Student Experience). The move to

Moodle was characterised as a step-change in technology-enhanced learning and aligned with the objectives of the student experience strategy (SESE), meaning that it was managed by the PVC SE

as part of a portfolio of SESE implementation projects. Responsibility for academic direction of the VLE and other SESE projects was given to the new Faculty roles of Associate Dean and Principal

Lecturer for the student experience (AD and PL SE).

3.2 Partners

The InStePP scheme was conceived as a three-way partnership, among students, the institution at which they are studying and professional associations representing prospective employers. Three

professional partners were identified and agreed to support the scheme, the ILM, ALT and ELESIG.

3.2.1 The Institute for Leadership and Managament (ILM) is the leading independent organisation for

leadership and management development. The ILM was identified because of a strong existing relationship with our Human Resources directorate and Careers Centre. It offers endorsement for the

Brookes Future Leaders Certificate, which was being offered by the Careers Centre prior to InStePP. Future Leaders is a two-day programme using a workshop approach to explore team building and

leadership. It was designed to help students think about the skills and experiences they have gained while studying at Brookes and how these can be developed further. ILM’s role as professional

partners on the InStePP project was to help us to develop appropriate professional recognition pathways for ePioneers’ consultancy work. The outcome of the relationship was the creation of the

Future Consultants Certificate, tailored to ePioneer partnership model with ILM endorsement. The FC programme was modelled on the experience of the Future Leaders programme, which was and

remains popular with students. Sponsored places on the FL programme were offered to the pilot cohort of ePioneers, which proved a significant incentive in recruitment, as did the Future Consultants

programme with subsequent cohorts. The FC programme is compulsory for ePioneers, whereas submission of a portfolio for ILM endorsed accreditation is optional.

3.2.2 Association for Learning Technology (ALT) is the UK’s leading membership organisation for learning technology professionals. ALT’s role as professional partners was to provide the

underpinnings for ePioneer reflection on their digital literacy development using the CMALT accreditation framework. While the extent of experience and reflection required for CMALT are

greater than are available to ePioneers, it was seen as valuable that the reflective framework for Future Consultants accreditation should be aligned with CMALT criteria. This view was borne out by

the fact that one ePioneer has expressed the intention to apply for CMALT. A lower level of ALT

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

accreditation for ePioneers was discussed but not taken forward by them. A second role for ALT was to facilitate the dissemination of project outcomes and to facilitate networking of ePioneers as change

agents for developing digital literacies with other students nationally. The outcome of the relationship is the custom eportfolio tool that is used by ePioneers to submit evidence of their consultancy

experience for the award of the Future Consultants Certificate (link). The Google template for this was kindly made available to us by ALT and mapped to ILM and CMALT accreditation frameworks.

3.2.3 Evaluation of Learners' Experiences of elearning Special Interest Group (ELESIG) is an international community of researchers and practitioners in HE and FE investigating learners'

experiences and uses of technology in learning. ELESIG’s role as professional partners was to assist with dissemination of project outcomes and facilitate the creation of networking opportunities for

students as change agents for digital literacy in the sector. The outcome of this relationship is pending at the time of writing and will consist of facilitation of an ePioneer-led online webinar as agreed by the

project steering group.

3.3 Characteristics of the staff and student groups involved in the project

3.3.1 Characteristics of participating students

The aim of the project from the outset was to create a centrally facilitated partnership scheme that

would be available to all staff and students, University-wide. Therefore, after an initial emphasis on 2nd and 3rd year undergraduates, it was decided not to target specific categories of student.

Similarly, although we anticipated that recruitment would be strongest in technical disciplines, we did not focus on particular subject areas or departments, nor on any specific categories of staff. Instead

we concentrated on identifying a set of key staff and student roles through which the scheme would operate. There was no selection process or digital literacy competence testing during recruitment;

aspiring ePioneers self-selected on a voluntary basis, having had the aims and workings of the scheme and its concomitant commitments and responbilities explained to them.

A matrix of ePioneers recruited in phase 3, their Faculty, subject area, stage (1st, 2nd, 3rd year), motivations, self-diagnosed levels of digital literacies can be viewed on request.

3.3.2 Characteristics of participating staff

In the section that follows, the characteristics of staff involved in the project and the roles performed

by them are described.

3.3.2.1 Commissioning staff: The InStePP scheme was intended for all staff, raher than for any

specific category or group. That said, the project team thought that staff interest in technology-enhanced learning would be centred on the planned switch in September 2012 from BlackBoard to

the Moodle Virtual Learning Environment (VLE). To capitalise on this, publicity for the scheme and its promotion to staff focused on the ePioneer roles of Moodle trainer and mentor, which influenced staff

motivations to participate and may indeed have limited take-up, given the professional support services that were already available (elearning advisors and learning technologists). However, the

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

scheme proved to have a broader appeal than this. Only 7 of the 19 commissions requested by staff were about the use of Moodle. A summary list of complete or ongoing commissions is included in

appendix to the evaluation report (p45). It also be noted that the way in which staff engaged with ePioneers, namely through commissioning digital literacy development consultations, went beyond

the short troubleshooting or support interventions that were originally envisaged.

3.3.2.2 Faculty academic staff: Principal Lecturers Student Experience. At the outset the PL SEs were

envisaged as performing a line management role in a 3-way apprenticeship contract between ePioneers, PL SEs and development staff (Media Workshop and OCSLD). This role was reduced in

the wake of revisions to the original 3-way contract model for partnerships. PL SEs no longer act as line managers for ePioneers, instead liaising with faculty colleagues to bring forward commissions

and helping with recruitment.

3.3.2.3.Consultancy trainer (Careers Counsellor). Based in the Careers Centre, this role took joint

lead with the ePioneer Coach, in developing and delivering the professional accreditation pathway for ePioneers, which resulted in the Future Consultants programme. The role holder at the time was

responsible for the delivery of the Future Leaders course on which Future Consultants was based.

3.3.2.4 ePioneer Coach (OCSLD Workbased qualifications project manager). The term ‘coach’ was

not formally used to describe this role in the pilot stages of the project, during which it was associated with the development lead role in the 3-way apprenticeship contract. Feedback from ePioneers and

staff after the first full iteration of the scheme (phases 3 & 4) highlighted the need for more ePioneer support in adapting to a partnership relationship with staff and coaching was identified as the most

appropriate way of meeting this need. The roles of development lead and coach were played by the same person throughout the project.

3.3.2.5 ePioneer mentor. This role grew in importance almost serendipitously as the project progressed. It had been intended from the outset that experienced ePioneers would be encouraged to

mentor new recruits but the success of peer support provided in this way exceeded expectations. This is largely thanks to the enthusiasm of one of the first cohort of ePioneers, who has since obtained

paid employment in the University as a result, in his view, of his work experience as an ePioneer. He continues to perform this now established role, which is described in more detail in the evaluation

report (see p15, New Roles).

3.3.2.6 ePioneer Communications. This was primarily an administrative and communications role and

is described in more detail in the evaluation report (see p16, New Roles). Initially, these functions were subsumed under the Project Manager’s responsibilities but the latter’s early departure

necessitated an early decision as to how they would be carried out when external funding ceased. The opportunity arose to secure a commitment of two days a week from a young Graduate Trainee

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

Intern1, whose enthusiasm and commitment proved invaluable to the project. It is particularly appropriate that ePioneer communications should be led by a recent graduate, since this helps to

build the necessary bridges between the student and staff communities for the partnership scheme to flourish.

3.3.2.7 Project Director. Performed by the then Head of eLearning, now Head of Media Workshop, this person held, and continues to exercise, overall responsibility for all aspects of the project, in

particular for the development of ePioneer tools and systems and for the co-ordination of ePioneer training. The project director had also to fulfil the role of Project Manager in two periods: in Phase 1

(September 2011 to January 2012) after the early departure of the first PM and in Phase 3 (October to December 2012) following the early departure of the second PM.

3.3.2.8 Project Manager. It was originally intended that there should be a Project Manager responsible for project management in phases 1 and 2 of the project, in preparation for full

implementation of the scheme in phase 3 (the second year). As it turned out there were two role holders, the first of whom left the project after just one month. A replacement was found in January

2012 but recruitment of ePioneers in the pilot phase was thus delayed until late in the academic year (May 2012). The second PM took responsibility for project management in Phases 2 and 3 (part

thereof) of the project but left prematurely in September 2012.

3.3.2.9 Steering group. The project was steered by a group composed of the Deputy Head of Human

Resources (Chair), the project team, the director of another SESE Project (project 07 Student Engagement with the Institution), ePioneer, Student Union and professional partner representatives

and an external observer. The steering group met three times.

3.3.3 Revised InStePP roles. Below is a table summarising how InStePP roles have changed since

the project’s inception. Further information on each role can be found in the evaluation report (pp.14 & 28).

During funding periodDuring funding period NowNow

Role Purpose Role Purpose

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

1 A pre-existing Graduate Trainee Internship Programme was re-introduced during the second year of the project (2012-13). The Learning Resources Directorate, in which the InStePP Project Director is based, took the opportunity to propose an internship which would promote partnership working for digital literacy development. The internship opportunity was described to prospective candidates in the following terms:

“... the internship will cover two main areas of work: communication and engagement with our customers; and partnership working with students for the development of digital and information literacy.”

[http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/hr/internships/18208.html]

The internship programme is continuing in 2013-14 and the InStePP scheme has been able to secure the services of a second intern with the same responsibilities.

During funding periodDuring funding period NowNow

Project Director Overall responsibility for project, ePioneer training

InStePP Director Overall responsibility for InStePPProject Manager Project management

for Phases 1 & 2 to prepare for full implementation

InStePP Director Overall responsibility for InStePP

Project evaluator Evaluation and monitoring, some ePioneer training

No longer requiredNo longer required

ePioneer Training and accreditation (OCSLD)

Designing, accrediting and delivering ILM- endorsed Future Consultants training

ePioneer Coach Supervising ePioneer training and development, supporting them in their partnerships

ePioneer Training and accreditation (Careers)

Designing, accrediting and delivering ILM- endorsed Future Consultants training

Future Consultants Training and accreditation

Administering Future Consultants assessment and ILM certification as required

ePioneer coordinator(from phase 3)

Organising recruitment and training activities, regular communication with ePioneers

ContinuesContinues

ePioneer mentor (from phase 3)

Communications and co-ordination for ePioneer commissions, recruitment and induction

ContinuesContinues

Project employability consultant

Line management of Project manager, ePioneer development consultant

No longer requiredNo longer required

ePioneer partnership lead (x4)

Supervision and support of ePioneers

Promotion of InStePP within faculties (reduced role)Promotion of InStePP within faculties (reduced role)

3.4 Two strands of baselining activity preceded or accompanied the inception of the InStePP project. 3.4.1 The first was the investigation of learner experiences of elearning, summarised in section 4 below,

which resulted in a definition and taxonomy of digital and information literacy as a Brookes graduate attribute and in a strategic curriculum renewal initiative to map current digital literacy development

practices in disciplines to programme learning outcomes.

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

3.4.2 The second audit strand concerned existing and potential student partnership and work experience schemes and opportunities at Brookes. Two baselining consultations (https://

wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/Baseline+1+-+Current+partnership+practice+review+18-11-11) were held on 18 November 2011, involving over 40 colleagues and including Student Union representation.

A survey, widely circulated prior to this event, of existing and potential student partnerships at Oxford Brookes and elsewhere, provided data for analysis at the event. These activities produced a snapshot

of partnership practice at Brookes at the time. The outcomes of the two consultations and a subsequent project team meeting resulted in a Stakeholder Analysis report (available at https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/

display/instepp/Baseline+2+-+Stakeholder+Synthesis+report+27-01-2011), which:

· summarised the types of student e-Pioneer roles that our stakeholders wanted to see

(Appendix B of baseline report);

· provided a categorisation of student e-Pioneer tasks based on survey data collected that were

likely to be of sustained mutual benefit to students and staff;

· provided a typology of e-Pioneer roles to which existing and proposed partnership schemes

were mapped – namely students as researchers/evaluators, students as tutors/trainers, and students as resource creators (section 4 of baseline report);

· proposed a set of criteria for selecting a range of ‘fit-for-purpose’ partnership models and pragmatic technology-supported learning activities for students, which teaching staff would

have the confidence to use in practice (appendix C of report); and

· recommended further stakeholder consultation and consideration of measurement of success

factors.

The criterion-based analysis of the survey data was used by the project team to identify a set of

preferred partnership models for piloting in InStePP. Common to all of these was a need to ensure that such partnerships bring mutual benefit to student e-Pioneers and staff and other students. Using the

analysis and findings of the Stakeholder Analysis Report, we captured what these preferred partnerships might look like and reported them in our baseline report.

The partnership model selected for development and review over the following months enabled us to elaborate on a range of different student e-pioneer roles and responsibilities to which professional body

recognition could be mapped (for example following induction and reflection on the activities and digital literacies developed). The choice of partnership model also enabled us to address the stakeholders’

main concerns about partnership viability which were:

i. Could the scheme be delivered within, alongside or outside the curriculum?

ii. What kinds of student roles and responsibilities could deliver effective digital literacy development?

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

iii. What kinds of rewards, supervision and support would be required? iv. What locality, organisation, division of labour and so forth would work best?

4.How did you approach the project?

4 The overall approach taken by the project was informed primarily by a number of HEA and JISC funded research-led projects and institutional initiatives pre-dating the Digital Literacies programme, in

which Oxford Brookes had been involved. Namely:

4.1 HEA-funded Pathfinder research 2007-8 – We conducted internal elearning benchmarking research

in 2006 which highlighted staff development in elearning as a current strength and an area for continuing focus for elearning strategic development. We also obtained HEA funding for an elearning

pilot Pathfinder project, Technology, Applications and Organisation, which focused on student experiences of elearning as part of their curriculum at Brookes and their informal social uses of software

to support their University studies. A mixed-method research approach was adopted to evaluate our learners’ experiences of elearning and focused on eliciting patterns and preferences in technology use

across the Institution (for a summary of methods and results see Benfield, Ramanau and Sharpe 2009 at http://bit.ly/xGKXOb). We took a strategic approach to elearning development which made academic

schools the locus, requiring them to develop their own elearning strategies and to appoint elearning coordinators and learning technologists, supported through the Oxford Brookes Course Design initiative

(see Sharpe, Benfield and Francis 2006 at http://bit.ly/ArXx2I and the HEA-JISC Briefing Paper at http://bit.ly/wh5Lmy).

4.2 JISC Learner experiences of elearning (2005 – 2010) – In phase 1 of this programme we contributed a Learner Scoping Study (http://bit.ly/15MYY2) and synthesis and support to the constituent

studies. We also synthesised and supported Phase 2 of the programme, collating and producing a suite of reusable staff development resources and web-based evaluation resources including recipe cards for

eight different data collection techniques and summaries of methodological issues. We also provided selected cases studies to summarise the key findings of the programme theme, together with guides for

a range of users and a final synthesis report. (See the Support and Synthesis website at http://bit.ly/ywxBAR).

4.3 A key outcome of the Pathfinder and learner experience research was the Brookes elearning Strategy 2008-11: Personal Learning Environments for digitally literate learners, which proposed that

schools (now faculties) should specify the digital literacies Brookes graduates would develop and that programmes should map out their technology-enriched learning practices, so as to make explicit to

students and staff the digital literacies that their programmes developed at that time. The mapping would provide a baseline for programmes subsequently to review their offerings and consider redesigns

that would maintain or enhance their digital currency.

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

4.4 Two JISC projects, Learning Literacies for a Digital Age (LLiDA) (2008-9) and Supporting Learners in a Digital Age (SLiDA) (2010), which investigated ‘the range of practices that underpin effective

learning in a digital age’ and included three Brookes outputs:

4.4.1 Two exemplars of good practice for LLiDA – Communicating architectural understanding in video

(see http://bit.ly/w4G5tz) - a case study on discipline specific digital literacies in architecture and Mapping graduate attributes for a digital age (see http://bit.ly/y5S3wz), an example of policy or strategy

for learning literacies. This latter exemplar described Brookes’ strategic focus on developing a framework for technology-enriched learning using the concept of graduate attributes for a digital age,

where digitally literate graduates are ‘self-regulating citizens in a globally connected society, able to handle multiple, diverse information sources and media, proficiently mediating their interactions with

social and professional groups using an ever-changing and expanding range of technologies and able confidently to use digital technologies to reflect on, record and manage their lifelong learning.’

4.4.2 An institutional case study for SLiDA (see http://bit.ly/xvQKCe and http://bit.ly/yRpnLF). This described the graduate attribute of digital and information literacy in the Brookes context, alongside the

other Brookes graduate attributes (academic literacy, critical self-awareness and personal literacy, global citizenship and research literacy). (https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/GAA/Home). It also

described the generic Brookes taxonomy for digital literacies, which was based on an extension of the SCONUL 1999 Seven Pillars of Information Literacy model to account for modern social media

technologies (Benfield and Francis et al 2011) and was informed by the extensive learner experience research in which the authors had taken an active part (see above). It also drew on staff stakeholder

consultations, which had included learning technologists and library subject specialists and a survey of digital literacies among academic and learning support staff (Ball 2010). A distillation of the taxonomy

was used to define the Brookes graduate attribute of digital literacy, which, together with four other graduate attributes, is at the core of the University’s Strategy for Enhancing the Student Experience

2010-2015 (SESE) (http://bit.ly/wgxJL9). This strategy demonstrates the University’s commitment to digital and information literacy by requiring that all academic programmes should make explicit each of

the Brookes Graduate Attributes in their programme learning outcomes. Quality assurance documentation templates were modified to enable this to happen. This exercise was well under way at

the start of the InStePP project and has since been completed. A Graduate Attributes in Action wiki (https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/GAA/Home) was set up to assist programme teams, containing case

studies of digital literacy development mappings on example programmes (https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/GAA/Digital+and+Information+Literacy) and a tools and resource pack for the mapping process

(https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/GAA/Tools+for+Course+Teams).

4.5 A key challenge for the sector, as well as for Brookes, was to translate such generic taxonomies to

contextualised, programme-level examples. We knew from the previous elearning projects outlined above that students can surprise us with their innovative use of technology. Therefore, this project set

out to engage students in helping to produce examples of digital literacies and supporting

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

developmental activities, which would capture the aesthetics, language and context of the disciplines from both the student and staff perspectives.

4.6 In addition to the research activities outlined abve, the InStePP approach was influenced by a strong principle of student engagement pervading the institution’s educational approach, both within

curricula and research practices and in extra-curricular and employability orientation. The partnership model was built on existing practices in this area, spread across the institution, including:

• The Student Internship Programme, offering Brookes Graduates paid work placements within Brookes for nine months, to aid their transition from study to the world of work.

• Faculty based initiatives including student module assistants and PAL scheme in the Faculty of Business.

• The Undergraduate Research Scholarship Scheme (URSS), initially sponsored by the Reinvention Centre for Undergraduate Research and now being managed by Careers.

• Student Support Co-ordinators (SSCs) based in Faculties, offering frontline support to students on any issue from IT problems to personal and money issues.

• ‘Future Leaders’ events managed jointly by the Careers Service and OCSLD and endorsed by Institute for Leadership and Management (ILM).

4.7 Influenced by the approach taken towards some of these schemes, the Internship Programme in particular, the project initially developed a 3-way apprenticeship model for ePioneer partnerships

(https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/3-way+contract)4.8 A further principle on which the InStePP approach was based was that of voluntary participation.

Rather than financial remuneration, ePioneers are offered authentic work-based consultancy opportunities in return for consultancy training, professional endorsement (ILM) and potential for

academic credit.4.9 The approach to stakeholder engagement involved a staff survey consultation by Ball 2010 (see

4.4.2 above) and two consultation workshops in phase 1 of the project (see 3.4.2 above). As an additional verification of the process, an external consultant was brought in to facilitate the organisation

and reporting of this consultation. The whole rationale for InStePP had come from research-based insights into the student experience of elearning summarised above in the preceding parts of this

section but further student consultation was sought directly from the Student Union and through intelligence gathered by the Student Support Co-ordinators network.

4.10 At the core of the InStePP approach was the attempt to demonstrate in practice the role of partnership in creating bridges between the diverse communities of the university. As the evaluation

report concludes “Universities and further education institutions have much to gain from students being actively engaged in helping transform the digital learning landscape. InStePP was founded on the

premise that digitally literate students can be key change agents for enhancing digital literacy [if they can be] encouraged to share their expertise. [...] Both staff and students indicated that involvement in the

project prompted increased communication and understanding between different members of the

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

institution and clarification of their roles and perspectives.” (Final Evaluation Report, Executive Summary pp.2-3).

4.10.1 Furthermore, a partnership approach to digital literacy development can contribute to current organisational challenges in the sector regarding the re-definition of many traditional learning support

roles, such as library and information services, creation and management of learning resources, careers guidance, staff development and facilities management. While other projects have developed

discrete roles for students as change agents in a single aspect of university provision (e.g. TWOLER: https://sites.google.com/a/staff.westminster.ac.uk/twoler/), this project is perhaps distinctive because it

has attempted a university-wide acceptance of students as pioneers of digital literacy, challenging the boundaries between staff and students and developing a culture of staff/student partnerships in a wide

range of staff communities and roles.

4.11 The approach taken to strategic institutional change in digital literacy development is described in

section 2 of this report. In synthesis, the approach taken has been to align InStePP with the University’s Strategy for the Enhancement of the Student Experience, which gives strategic directions for and

commitments to (i) the embedding of explicit graduate attribute development outcomes (including DL) in all curricula, (ii) student engagement in the academic workings of the University and (iii) increasing the

number and range of student-led and extra curricular initiatives to develop and enhance personal and leadership skills and attributes for employability.

4.11.1 A further component of the approach to strategic change was the establishment of partnerships with professional associations, ILM, ALT and ELESIG, for the creation of recognition pathways for

ePioneers.

4.12 Numerous approaches were taken to developing the student participants in the scheme including:

4.12.1 Formal ePioneer training. This had two main components:

• The programme Future Consultants Certificate programme. A one-day seminar and

workshop run by the Careers Centre and OCSLD. (In the pilot phase ePioneer consultancy training was offered in the form of the Future Leaders programme, which has

a similar format to Future Consultants).

• An ePioneer training programme, consisting of training with the tools that ePioneers were likely to use in their work (such as Moodle, Google apps and the institutional research and

learning object repository, RADAR) and compulsory training provided to all Brookes staff working with digital technologies (e.g. data protection and digital copyright). The full

programme is shown on p21 of the evaluation report.4.12.2 ePioneer Mentoring. An experienced ePioneer disseminated news and information about

new commissions to the ePioneers in the Moodle ePioneer Community and acted as a conduit for advice on carrying out commission tasks between commissioning staff and ePioneers.

4.12.3 ePioneer Coaching. The importance of this form of support was not fully appreciated until the end of the project. A staff coach is now assigned to all ePioneers to ensure satisfactory

progress on commissions and resolution of partnership issues.

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

4.12.4 Line management by Faculty academic staff (PLs). In the original 3-way contract model, ePioneers received line management support from Faculty Principal Lecturers with special

responsibility for Student Experience enhancement initiatives. A reduced line management role is now carried out by the InStePP Director.

4.13 Main responsibility for external InStePP communications lay with the Project Director and Project Manager, e.g. project dissemination, conferences and seminars, reporting to the funding body,

maintenance of a project website, wiki and blog and updates to the JISC Design Studio. ePioneer communications, after the departure of the Project Manager, were mainly handled by the ePioneer

Communications Graduate Intern with the Project Director and Pioneer Coach; liaison with professional partners was led by the ePioneer Coach; peer communications among ePioneers mainly took place in

the Moodle ePioneer Community space under the guidance of the ePioneer Mentor and via email, telephone and face-to-face meetings and extra-institutional social media. ePioneers also received

regular project updates at face-to-face training workshops.To staff and students in the Faculties and Directorates, the scheme was promoted through Faculty PL

SEs, through the University newsletter OnStream, the University Fellows Forum, Minerva, and the Learning Resources information bulletin, through Moodle announcements and via IT services’ Message

of the Day noticeboard on pooled room computers.Presentations about InStePP were given to the JISC DDL Programme meetings and cluster groups, to

the annual conference of the Association for Learning Technology, 10–12 September 2013, Nottingham, UK (ALT-C 2013: Building new cultures of learning) (http://bit.ly/1gMKj9G) and to the HEA Annual

Conference, 2-3 July 2014, Aston University (http://bit.ly/1ksyrtt).

4.14 Primary responsibility for the management of project activities lay with the Project Manager during

the first year of the project and with the Project Director in the second year. However, early departures by the two holders of this role, one just one month after the start of the project and the second two

months prematurely in phase 3 of the project, meant that project management was taken over for an additional 7 months by the Project Director.

Day-to-day management of project communications was taken over by the Graduate Intern (ePioneer Communications) after the departure of the second Project manager and the management of ePioneer

consultancy training and coaching was led by the ePioneer Coach, assisted by the Careers Centre and the Project Director. A leading part in the co-ordination of the commissioning process between staff and

students and in the management of the Moodle ePioneer community and its associated forum and resources was taken by the ePioneer Mentor.

4.15 The evaluation method is described in detail in the introduction to the evaluation report. The findings of the evaluation were based on analysis of 17 interviews with student ePioneers and their staff partners

active over semesters one and two of academic year 2012-13 and of documents, including meeting minutes and notes, ePioneer records and administrative documents.

4.16 As reported elsewhere in this report (see sections 1.3 & 9.2), the 3-way model of staff-student partnership had to change, partly as a result of the unanticipated mode in which partnerships were

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

conducted, i.e. as staff commissions rather than as 1-2-1 support and troubleshooting of the Moodle VLE and partly because it emerged that the Faculty PLs were not best placed to provide the partnership

lead role (see sub-section 3.3.2.2).Other changes in direction included the dropping of the entrepreneurial ePioneer role (see section 1.4

and evaluation recommendation 1), the waiving of the Future Consultants training as a “licence to practise” - it remains compulsory but ePioneers can begin work on commissions before they have

completed it, and the definition of new team roles, namely the ePioneer Communications Intern, occasioned by the early departure of Project Manager and the ePioneer Mentor. The commission

approval process was also streamlined to reduce the time lag between ePioneer recruitment and availability of commissions (see evaluation recommendation 4).

5.What deliverables has your project produced?

The project prodused a range of processes and tools which should transfer with minimal adjustment to

other institutions in the post-16 educational sector. They are described in detail in the evaluation report and listed in summary below with page references.

• The 3-way partnership model (page 11 and online: https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/3-way

+contract); • the Development Wheel - an interactive web infographic describing the InStePP partnership model

and support framework (p11 and online: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/mediaworkshop/instepp-wheel/instepp-wheel-1-6.html);

• 4 ePioneer roles and role cards – trainer, mentor, resource creator, researcher, with associated exemplar commissions (p8 and online:https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/1.+ePioneer+Role

+Cards);• ePioneer reflection tools, including a Google sites eportfolio mapped to ILM and CMALT frameworks

(https://sites.google.com/a/brookes.ac.uk/instepp-epioneer-eportfolio-future-consultants/) and Google forms for recording activity and feedback (p16); view activity record online at: https://

docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjxIfRjFhtt1dE9TSkt0MVlNNjZpaWZLRjZIdmdEckE&usp=sharing; view feedback form online:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjxIfRjFhtt1dE84bW9EaGd2RmxSZTcxeUcxWGdEWlE&usp=sharing

• the commissioning process (p24), including Google forms (https://docs.google.com/a/brookes.ac.uk/forms/d/1bDiJiEKyJt5Tslzjstn02b0g5ALUUzyvvL7TudR0P2Y/viewform) and sites for registering,

monitoring and closing commissions (p16 and online: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AouFF9HL1lm7dFd0NWhzU3FDSG8wWTF5Szh5N3JtWFE&usp=sharing);

• a package of ePioneer training and development, particularly the ILM-recognised Future Consultants programme (p21, viewable online on request);

• the ePioneer reward and recognition model (p22 and online: http://bit.ly/1i9Nete);

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

• staff roles for administration and support of the scheme (p28 and online: https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/Roles+and+Schedule+for+2013-4);

• evaluation case studies. Media rich stories of ePioneers with associated video interviews, ePioneer reflections, analysis of partner feedback and commission outputs where appropriate (p6 and online:

https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/InStePP+Case+Studies);• Recruitment, training and support timeline with staffing “swim lanes” for resourcing purposes (https://

wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/Roles+and+Schedule+for+2013-4).

The use made of these tools, resources and processes is described and evaluated in the evaluation

report.

A further sharable resource is in development, consisting of an open access archive of commissions in

the Brookes digital assets repository (RADAR), searchable by ePioneer role, subject area and outcome. (http://bit.ly/19EfFLj)

5.1 Active interest has been expressed in implementing the InStePP scheme at the University of Bath by the PriDE2 at the University of Bath. The two project teams noted synergy between their respective

approaches. The PriDE team set up Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs) to act as ‘creative think tanks’ to investigate digital literacy. These FLCs brought together key stakeholders to explore what it

means to be ‘digitally literate’ in the context of the disciplines and faculties to which students belong. Each FLC produced definitions of digital lteracy for their Faculty or School and a list of associated digital

literacy attributes for learners in that Faculty. The PriDE team is interested in the InStePP partnership scheme as a means of embedding its discipline-specific digital literacies in curricula. For its part, the

InStePP team is interested in the PriDE process of definition of digital literacies in disciplines as a complement to its initiative of mapping digital literacies to programme learning outcomes.

6.What benefits has your project delivered and who are the beneficiaries?

Although affecting smaller numbers than had been anticipated, significant benefits were reported by the students and staff who participated in the InStePP scheme. For a detailed account of the benefits of

InStePP for students, staff and the institution as a whole, please refer to the accompanying evaluation report, the executive summary of which is reproduced here.

The final InStePP evaluation provides:

• a record of the development of the InStePP project

• evidence and analysis of two key evaluation themes:

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

2 The Professionalism in the Digital Environment (PriDE) project was closely linked with InStePP by virtue of being in the same cluster group of projects in the DDL programme; it set out to define and develop discipline-specific digital literacies at the University of Bath. More information about the PriDE project is available from the project website at: http://www.bath.ac.uk/learningandteaching/courses-development/current-projects/pride-project.html

a. InStePP’s institutional impact generally and on student and staff digital literacies in particular;

b. the sustainability of student-staff partnerships for digital literacies.

The findings of the evaluation are based on analysis of a total of 17 interviews with student ePioneers

and staff partners of them active over semesters one and two of academic year 2012-13; and documents, including meeting minutes and notes, ePioneer records and administrative documents. Interviews with

ePioneers and staff were also conducted for the End-of-Phase 2 evaluation (see Benfield 2012).

The JISC Developing Digital Literacies programme that funded InStePP offered a rare opportunity to

experiment with mechanisms to foster student-staff partnerships to enhance digital literacy. Over two years InStePP made a substantial investment – primarily staff time – in developing and testing systems

and processes for recruiting, rewarding through work experience and professional accreditation, developing and supporting digitally literate students to work with staff on mutually beneficial

enhancements to the digital learning environment at Brookes.InStePP operated at a much more modest scale than was originally projected, a total of 12 student

ePioneers having been active over three semesters. These ePioneers worked on small digital development projects called ‘commissions’. 12 commissions were completed and a further seven were

ongoing at the time of writing (September 2013).Despite its modest scale, InStePP should be looked at as a prototype that has yet to realise its full

potential benefits. The foundation has been laid to run a scheme of staff-student partnerships that can make a significant impact on educational practice, especially in developing digital literacy.

Student participants in InStePP derive great personal benefit from partnering with staff in developing the institutional digital learning environment. Through work experience they gain substantial employability

enhancements. InStePP provides opportunities for e-Pioneers to be engaged in reflective practice and in a process of continuous and transformative learning in their ePioneer experience. This contributes to

developing their critical self-awareness and personal literacy, in the parlance of the Brookes graduate attributes. Student participants also feel empowered and valued by other university members, by having

their ‘voice’ heard, gaining a sense of being part of the wider academic community and contributing to the improvement of the digital literacies for the whole university.

Monetary rewards are not necessary to sustain this; the possibility of professional recognition, the work experience opportunity and consequent enhancements to employability, and the chance to work closely

with staff as equal partners in a ‘grand endeavour’ to improve the digital landscape, are valuable enough rewards.

We found that student ePioneers face a substantial challenge in the process of role reversal, where they move from being a student to an equal partner with staff. In their partnerships with staff they may

sometimes need to proactively ‘manage their (staff) client’. ePioneers need a staff coach to help them manage this process quickly and effectively.

There is material evidence of the validity of the ‘mutual benefit’ concept in staff-student partnerships. Students and staff partners alike testify to the rewards they gained from their partnerships. The main

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

rewards are the joy of creative mutual endeavour, a sense of achievement in what they build together, and pride in the value of their work to the wider institution.

Another major theme that emerged from our analysis was the role of partnership in creating bridges between the different worlds of the university. Both staff and students indicated that involvement in the

project prompted increased communication and understanding between different members of the institution and clarification of their roles and perspectives.

Universities and further education institutions have much to gain from students being actively engaged in helping transform the digital learning landscape. InStePP was founded on the premise that technically-

savvy, or digitally literate, students can be key change agents for enhancing digital literacy, if they can be encouraged to share their expertise. Our data shows that students in partnership with staff can motivate

staff to adopt new digital learning and teaching practices. It indicates that the impact on practice is potentially broader than just the use of technology. Student partners have helped staff to hear the student

voice, gain insights into learners’ perspectives, and stimulated them to think differently about learner needs than they did before.

InStePP partnerships showed creativity, fresh perspectives and new practices being brought to bear on educational problems or issues through students and staff working jointly on them. This is perhaps the

key benefit of the InStePP approach. It may be possible to apply a similar approach to developing the curriculum for other graduate attributes than digital and information literacy.

7.What other impacts has your project had?

7.1 Organisational impacts and change. The impact on institutional digital literacy, as opposed to that of individual partcipants, was centred on making better use of existing digital resources. A key idea that

emerged from the data is that e-Pioneers worked on their commissions by building on “what was already there”. The outputs of the commissions themselves also had impact which extended beyond the benefits

afforded to the people who commissioned and created them. “Things like the Google apps training commission, ePioneer support with social media at the Brookes Learning and Teaching conference, the

development of resources to support staff and students making podcasts, help much larger numbers of people within the institution to use digital technology effectively than just those involved in their

creation.” (p36)

7.2 Cultural attitudes. The evaluators have this to say about the effect of InStePP on cultural attitudes

regarding “Findings suggest that InStePP began to change the ‘us and them’ attitude [prevalent among staff and students] and to defragment the university by allowing bridges to be built between the different

university worlds. Respondents’ insights highlighted the catalytic role of the student-staff partnership in enabling stronger ties to be drawn between the diverse members of the institution. This approach led to

the development of new relationships and a greater sense of a learning community among those involved, enabling students and staff alike to feel that they are partners with complementary roles and

responsibilities in the learning process.” (p35)

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

7.3 Changes in how digital literacies are exhibited or understood. In the view of the evaluators it is in this area that InStePP has had the most significant impact. “The real prize is the creativity, fresh

perspectives and new practices that are brought to bear on educational problems or issues when students and staff work jointly on them.[...] Working in partnership with students provides exciting

opportunities for innovation in technology-enhanced learning, and keeps the student experience at the heart of pedagogic activity.” (p37) Respondents repeatedly reported that the exchange of viewpoints on

digital literacy was stimulating and led them to challenge their existing views and practices.

As well as providing fresh perspectives on the use of new technology, e-Pioneers also helped lecturers

while discussing their commissions by offering insights into learners’ needs and meta-cognitive processing.

7.4 Unintended outcomes. The evaluators suggest that student-staff partnerships could be a viable

mechanism for enhancing other graduate attributes than digital literacies. Harnessing the student voice through active partnership with students could make a real difference to institutional practice in other

areas. The Brookes graduate attribute of global citizenship, for example, might be one such area. It seems possible that the curriculum could be enriched through partnerships of students and staff working

on commissions to develop cross-cultural perspectives and/or learning activities.

Another unanticipated but welcome outcome was the case of an e-Pioneer who took the initiative to

approach a lecturer, without being prompted by anyone, to suggest a possible commission. The ePioneer expressed an interest in making some of the materials on the courses her lecturer was responsible for

available to other students across the university. The suggeston was taken up by the lecturer and became a commission.

7.5 Unanticipated disadvantages. Evaluation data revealed the risk, when using student volunteers to

do potentially challenging and interesting digital development work, of professional staff feeling undermining. There can be tensions around the relationships and responsibilities between professionals

like the Brookes Digital Media and eLearning Developers (DMeLDs), a pool of skilled learning technology professionals, and the ePioneers, who might be thought of as willing amateurs. There can

be a perception among the professionals that the number of attractive projects available to them to work on might be reduced, if these are made available to, or even actively allocated to volunteers. The data

contains at least one example of this happening and, aside from the initial period in Phase 2 of ePioneers as ‘Moodle supporters’, when they helped DMeLDs run staff training workshops, there was

little coordination or communication between the ePioneer commissions and DMeLDs. We have learnt

from this that ePioneers doing a commission should be put in contact with the relevant faculty DMeLDs and that they should have a responsibility to discuss their project plan with them.

8.How will the project be developed further/sustained?

With current levels of resource, InStePP is sustainable at its current scale. The continued success of the scheme beyond the period of funding demonstrates that it has moved beyond its pilot stage. However, in

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

order for the University to get the most out of continuing InStePP as a regular scheme, a number of objectives for further development are to be recommended.

There is capacity with current resourcing for about twice as many active ePioneers at any one time as the scheme has had up to now. There is also a need for the scheme to be a little more ‘student friendly’ in

two main ways. First, ePioneer ‘commissions’ should be crafted to be achievable within the tempo of student life, i.e. in a single semester, or in the case of ‘larger’ projects, to have key, achievable milestones

that fit within the academic calendar. Second, ePioneers need more proactive support from a staff coach, to help them manage the challenges of role reversal, in which they become equal partners with staff and

may even have to actively manage their staff partners in some aspects of their project.

Below is a summary of recommendations for sustainable development of the InStePP scheme in the next

period. They are set out in more detail in the evaluation report. Approximately half of the recommendations have already been acted upon and are listed first.

Recommendations already implemented:

1. That the entrepreneur role be withdrawn as inappropriate for a voluntary scheme whose incentives

and rewards are intended to be academic and employability-related.2. That InStePP actively seek ePioneer recruits from all course levels: foundation, undergraduate and

postgraduate. In general there should be wider promotion of the project for better recruitment and for more information to staff.

3. That when ePioneers are recruited and sign up at their very first Future Consultants session, they choose a commission to work on in partnership with a staff member. This enables them to move

straight into working as an ePioneer, avoiding the hiatus encountered by some ePioneers during the project between recruitment and initial training and finding a digital literacy partnership to work

on.4. That the range and scope of possible commissions be substantially increased to provide ePioneers

sufficient choice of varied and interesting projects partnering with staff on digital literacy development. To mitigate the risk inherent in doing this of some commissions not being taken up,

with a resulting loss of enthusiasm for the scheme among staff, a filtering and approval process has been set up between InStePP and staff commissioners, so that staff whose commissions are

not taken up quickly are notified promptly and offered advice about other means to address their goal or possible refinements to make it more attractive or suitable for an ePioneer partner to work

on.5. To provide the feedback form, activity record and eportfolio only on request to ePioneers to avoid

wasting administrative resources, as they are infrequently used. Future record keeping and monitoring would be more efficiently performed within the more widely used Moodle Community

site. The commissions form is the most important tool for establishing partnerships and has been enhanced in its functionality.

6. That the role of a formal ePioneer mentor be maintained, since it fulfills both an important administrative function within the commissioning process and also a necessary mentoring and

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

induction function for new ePioneers. In future, this role can probably be fulfilled by one or more existing ePioneers wishing to maintain involvement in the scheme for more than one semester. In

this case there should be a minimal selection and recruitment process to ensure transparency and fairness.

7. That the ePioneer Coordinator role be continued into the foreseeable future, in order for InStePP to be able to step up its intensity by doubling its number of regular active Pioneers. Learning

Resources has agreed to continue its commitment to InStePP by its annual intern in the coming year. Were the Intern scheme to be withdrawn, the role would need to be filled by someone else or

InStePP would fail through lack of administrative resource.8. That the old ‘partnership lead role’ intended for PLSEs be scrapped. The role of the PLSEs has

been radically reduced to promoting InStePP among staff and students in their faculties and helping initial recruitment of ePioneers each semester.

9. That the role of ePioneer Coach be established, provided by an OCSLD staff developer, in place of the ‘development lead role’. The ePioneer Coach now supports ePioneers though regular,

structured briefing and feedback meetings designed to facilitate them in evaluating progress with their commissions and helping them maintain adequate records of their work and their own

development.

Recommendations yet to be implemented:

1. That the ePioneer researcher role be more actively promoted. InStePP should make contact with dissertation and independent study module leaders in the relevant faculties to promote the idea of

ePioneer researchers. The InStePP team should elaborate the support that it can provide for such students, including mentorship by experienced technology-enhanced learning researchers, a suite of

possible investigation topics, and support for access to relevant investigation sites.

2. To increase ePioneer recruitment, with a target of about ten new ePioneers engaged in a sustained way each semester and preferably a minimum of five continuing on from one semester to the next,

i.e. aiming for at least 15 active ePioneers at any time.3. To consider providing Future Consultants as an ILM recognised but non-certificated course in future,

in order to eliminate the cost of providing this service.4. That commissions be carefully crafted so that they can be completed within the tempo of normal

student life. They should have explicit objectives that are achievable within a single semester, or if necessarily longer than one semester, they must be specified with key, achievable milestones that fit

within the academic calendar.5. That the option of doing InStePP commissions within the structure of Independent Study Modules

should be more widely promoted among prospective staff and students. The benefits are multiple: there is the added incentive of academic credit for completing a commission and the framework of

the academic structure of a module may well add a level of external discipline. Furthermore, the academic structure means that the ePioneer has a rigid timetable and set of objectives for their

commission, as well as the additional support of an academic advisor in their module leader.

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

6. InStePP should facilitate better communication about ePioneer projects to the DMeLDs through the mechanism of the existing Learning Technologists Forum. As a matter of course ePioneers doing a

commission should be put in contact with the relevant faculty DMeLDs and see it as their responsibility to discuss their project plan with them.

7. To maximise learning on all sides of the partnership, the ePioneer coach should ensure that ePioneers implement a commission closure event with their staff partner(s).

8. In the next period, InStePP should develop promotional activities to follow up on successfully completed commissions, ensuring that they are known about and used, and that the crowd-sourced

resources continue to be developed.

It should also be noted that student-staff partnerships may be a viable mechanism for enhancing other

graduate attributes than digital literacies. In some areas harnessing the student voice through active partnership with students could make a real difference to institutional practice. The Brookes graduate

attribute of global citizenship, for example, might be one such area. For example, it seems possible to enrich the curriculum through partnerships of students and staff working on commissions to develop

cross-cultural perspectives and/or learning activities.

9. Lessons learned and reflection

9.1 We were ambitious in the measures for success that we set for ourselves, seeking ePioneer recruitment targets which proved too high. Nevertheless, it can be seen from the evaluation evidence

that the partnership model achieved high impact for those involved, albeit on a reduced scale. Rather than measuring success in numbers of ePioneers recruited or commissions completed, we learned

instead to focus on the effectiveness of the model for creating situated digital literacy development opportunities at the point and time of need, both for students and staff.

9.2 We did not know at the outset that staff commissions would become the preferred way for staff to engage with ePioneers, having envisaged an eclectic mix of interactions, including one-to-one

training/mentoring, technical troubleshooting, service desk-style Moodle support, help with gathering student feedback, small-scale IT development projects etc. Some of the tools, resources and

processes that we initially developed for our first cohort of ePioneers had to be modified as a result. For example, time was spent planning and implementing an ePioneer portal, using Google sites,

forms and calendars, which would provide staff with information on the availability, skills and interests of ePioneers, with mechanisms for staff to locate them by campus and book appointments with them.

It was thought important that staff should have access ePioneers on all campuses, in agreed physical locations and at specified times. ePioneers were asked to specify on which campuses they would be

prepared to receive or visit staff; a meeting place was made available, in the Media Workshop, at Headington, Gipsy Lane Campus, for ePioneer surgeries and one-to-one appointments; ePioneers

and staff stakeholders were shown how to make appointment bookings using Google calendar on each campus. Although ePioneers initially made use of the portal to profile themselves and to indicate

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

their availability, they ceased to maintain this information when it became clear that staff were less likely to consult them directly, preferring to make written partnership requests in the form of

commissions.

9.3 Voluntary vs paid student work. We encountered some skepticism that students if unpaid would

have sufficient incentive to complete commissions. These concerns were exaggerated with ePioneers completing a significant number of commissions and reporting that the experience and support they

had gained were sufficient incentive. Institutions adopting the InStePP need to have a clear, shared view of when it is appropriate to pay students in schemes of this kind and when it is not.

9.4 We learnt that the offer of consultancy training with professionally endorsement accreditation was a strong incentive to students, perceived as offering a valuable addition to their CVs and employment

prospects but that it was treated as an optional extra by most ePioneers, for whom the work experience of being ePioneer and the sense of pride and achievement at having worked in a

reversed-role partnership with staff were reward enough.

9.5 We learnt that the demands of the academic calendar and the unfamiliarity of consultancy on an

equal footing with staff mean that ePioneers require professional coaching and peer mentoring.

9.6 On the basis of our experience we would advise other institutions to think strategically and start

small with student-staff partnerships for developing digital literacy - we over-reached ourselves. A small cohort of ePioneers working in teams on 12-15 carefully-chosen commissions of wide-ranging

applicability has more potential impact than 50-100 ePioneers working on discrete, unrelated tasks with individual staff.

9.7 Working in partnership with staff had a high level of impact on ePioneers’ personal development – in some cases being a transformational experience. “To me being an e-Pioneer was standing out of

the flock of students and doing something big” and “[Being an ePioneer] just opened my eyes to ‘this is what you can do’” (pp.31 & 34 of evaluation report).

9.8 We would recommend encouraging staff to think about their digital literacy development needs before the end of each academic year, in order to ensure that they raise commissions in time for the

ePioneers to work on them from the start of the subsequent year. A good number and range of commissions should be available before ePioneers are recruited. Front-loading the raising of

commissions reduces the risk of students dropping out after recruitment for lack of anything to work on straightaway. Clear and regular communication with commissioning staff about the progress of

their commissions, or lack of it, is also essential to prevent disillusionment.

Tips for other institutions adopting a similar approach

9.10 Other institutions wishing to adopt a similar approach to InStePP should try to preserve the

voluntary status of the partnership. The available recognition and reward pathways (enhanced employability and potential academic credit) are sufficient incentive. The size of the resulting

volunteer cohort is manageable, despite the considerable support needs.

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

9.11 The support needs of ePioneers should not be under-estimated – the consultancy role is an unfamiliar one and must be supervised; expert professional help must be available for coaching and

mentoring if the scheme is to scale up.

9.12 Clear minima for completion of Future Consultants training and commissions should be

established but operators of the scheme should be ready to be flexible with regard to ePioneer engagement. What students want from being ePioneers will vary: some will be satisfied just to fulfil a

commission and will not require FC endorsement. This is not a sign of failure.

9.13 Institutions adopting the scheme should not only be driven by numerical targets, either for

ePioneers or commissions. Focus should be placed on its impact on institutional digital literacy practices and on the range and transferability of commission outcomes.

9.14 Commissions should be encouraged from staff teams (departments, programme teams, student support teams etc.) for greater impact and to increase take-up.

9.15 The value of ePioneers partnering with learning support staff, such as educational developers, library staff, academic administrators and IT service staff, should not be overlooked. Such groups

have a leading role in developing digital literacies institutionally, alongside as well as in the curriculum.

The InStePP scheme continues to evolve. The lessons we have learnt and the changes we have made or intend to make to it are summarised below.

1. We were right to insist that ePioneering should be voluntary and wrong to include an entrepreneurial ePioneer role.

2. We placed too much emphasis on students supporting staff in learning to use the new Moodle VLE. We should now actively promote the ePioneer researcher role and the academic recognition pathway

for ePioneers by offering academic credit towards dissertations and independent study modules. Students should also be encouraged to come forward with their own ideas for commissions.

3. InStePP needs to expand to have wider institutional impact. ePioneer recruitment should be increased, with an aim of about ten new ePioneers engaged in a sustained way each semester and preferably a

minimum of five continuing on from the previous semester, i.e. aiming for at least 15 active ePioneers at any time.

4. ePioneers should be recruited from all course levels: foundation, undergraduate and postgraduate, with wider promotion of the scheme for better recruitment and more information to staff.

5. Future Consultants training with ILM endorsement may not be essential to the scheme. The professional endorsement can be offered as an optional.

6. When ePioneers are recruited and sign up, they should be able to choose a commission to work on in partnership with a staff member straightaway to reduce dropout.

7. The range and scope of possible commissions for ePioneers to work on should be as varied and interesting as possible. At the same time, there should be a filtering and approval process, so that staff

whose commissions are not taken up quickly are notified promptly and offered advice about other

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

means to address their goal or possible refinements to make it more attractive or suitable for an ePioneer partner to work on.

8. We needed to offer staff more guidance on the nature and purpose of commissions. Commissions should be carefully crafted so that they can be completed within the tempo of normal student life. They

should have explicit objectives with key, achievable milestones that fit within the academic calendar.9. The option of doing InStePP commissions within the structure of Independent Study Modules should

be widely promoted among prospective staff and students. The framework of academic assessment will be an added incentive for ePioneers to complete commissions and module leaders will be a

valuable additional source of support.10.We should ensure better communication between ePioneers and expert professional staff, e.g.

DMeLDs.11. We should seek to reduce administrative overhead by the least used ePioneer tools only on request.

12. A formal ePioneer mentor role should be maintained, since it fulfills both an important administrative function within the commissioning process and also a necessary mentoring and induction one for new

ePioneers. 13. The ePioneer Communications role should be continued into the foreseeable future. If InStePP is to

double the number of regular active Pioneers, the Communications Intern will be an essential administrative resource.

14. The old ‘partnership lead role’ intended for PL SEs has been scrapped. The role of the PLSEs has been reduced to promoting InStePP among staff and students in their faculties and helping initial

recruitment of ePioneers each semester.15. The ‘development lead role’ in the original 3-way contract has been replaced by the ePioneer Coach.

The ePioneer Coach supports ePioneers though regular, structured briefing and feedback meetings to ensure progress with commissions, maintenance of work records and reflection on development.

16. The ePioneer coach will ensure that a commission closure or handover event takes place, to evaluate the project and give the parties the opportunity to offer feedback.

17. InStePP should better capitalise on successfully completed commissions to ensure that they are known about and used and that they continue to be developed.

We learnt a salutary lesson about the value of identifying an experienced, existing member of staff as Project Manager, rather than relying on the convenience of a colleague “between contracts”.

With hindsight, the PM role did not need to be full time; a 0.5 appointment would have released more resources, earlier in the project, for other purposes the importance of which we underestimated. These

include: i. the time and resources required for advocacy, support and continuous communication

with staff and students. We relied heavily on the Principal Lecturers in the Faculties both to engage staff and for ePioneer recruitment. The former reliance (for staff

engagement) was well-placed: the InStePP project aligned well with the PL SE role and was supported by senior management. The PLs proved effective in raising awareness

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

of the scheme and in encouraging staff to generate commission requests and will continue to perform this role. Seeing the PL SEs as central to the line management of

ePioneers was less well-judged. It came about because we were concerned that ePioneers should be available in approximately equal numbers in all Faculties. It was

envisaged that Faculty-based groups of ePioneers would work primarily with staff in their broad subject areas, each group line managed by the PL SE in their Faculty.

In practice, ePioneer recruitment was uneven, leaving some PL SEs with more ePioneers to work with than others. Furthermore, ePioneers chose to work on

commissions emanating from subject areas outside their own Faculties, making it problematic for the PLs to maintain a line management relationship with them. The

recruitment to the project of a student Communications Intern and more intensive use of social media in year 2 of the project greatly improved communications with

ePioneers. 0.4 of a Communications Internship will continue to be dedicated to ePioneer recruitment and communications going forward. ePioneer coaching needs will

be met by the Workbased Qualifications Project Manager (see ii. below) and by the Project Director.

The scheme was also promoted through the Students Union despite their concerns that the focus on digital literacies might prevent the opportunity to become an ePioneer from

being seen as equally accessible to all students. To address these concerns it is now stressed in recruitment and advertising that high levels of DL are not a requirement for

aspirant ePioneers.ii. the need for ePioneer coaching and mentoring (the latter preferably by student peers

rather than staff). This was mistakenly conflated with the Project Management role during the pilot stage, when it is in fact two separate roles, focused on supporting

successful consultancy relationships between ePioneer students and staff, in order for commissions to have a successful outcome. These roles also serve to facilitate

development of peer coaching and mentoring skills among ePioneer themselves. The continuation of the ePioneer Coach role has been agreed with the roleholder’s line

manager.

Richard FrancisInStePP Project Director

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.

References

Ball, A. (2010). Digital Literacies Survey 2010 Analysis. Internal communication, Oxford Brookes University 2010. Retrieved from the internet 17-12-2013: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzxIfRjFhtt1ajdWdHFVbzZCVzQ/edit?usp=sharing

Baume, D. (2012). "Approaches for Developers to Digital Literacies and Digital Fluency." Educational Developments 13(2), June 2012 – Accepted for publication

Benfield, G. (2012). 'InStePP End-of-Phase 2 Evaluation Report'. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development. [Online], from https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/instepp/Reports.

Benfield, G & Francis, R (2008) A Mapping of Graduate Attributes for a Digital Age at Brookes. Available online at: https://mw.brookes.ac.uk/download/attachments/6750456/A%2BMapping%2Bof%2BGraduate%2BAttributes%2Bfor%2Ba%2BDigital%2BAge%2Bat%2BBrookes.doc. Accessed 21/12/2013.

Benfield, G & Pavlakou, M. (2013) InStePP Final Evaluation Report. Submitted to the JISC September 2013.

Francis, R., Benfield, G. et al (2011). A Taxonomy of Digital and Information Literacies. Internal communication, Oxford Brookes University 2011. Retrieved from Brookes Wiki 17-12-2013: https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/download/attachments/85655653/A+taxonomy+of+Digital+literacies+v3+May+2011.doc?version=1&modificationDate=1387303095869

Gourlay L.J., (2011) New Technologies and holistic development in higher education, Educational Developments, (12: 2) 17-21

JISC (2009). "Learner experiences of e-learning." [Online] Retrieved 9 April, 2009, from https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/JISCle2/About.

NUS, (2010). ‘Student perspectives on technology – demand, perceptions and training needs’, Report to HEFCE, http://www.online-conference.net/jisc/content2010/ali/SPOT1%20- %20Student%20Perspectives%20on%20Technology%20-%20NUS.pdf [accessed 11/12/2012]

Oxford Brookes University (2010). "Strategy for Enhancing the Student Experience 2010- 2015." [Online] Retrieved 21-12-2013, from http://www.brookes.ac.uk/about/strategy/about.

Peer Enhancement of Teaching, Assessment and Learning (PETAL) https://sites.google.com/a/brookes.ac.uk/petal/home.

Saffron Powell, S. & Varga-Atkins, T. (2013). ‘Digital Literacies: A Study of Perspectives and Practices of Academic Staff’. Retrieved 21-12.2013 from http://seda.ac.uk/resources/files/PowellVargaAtkinsFinalRpt.pdf

Sharpe, R. (2013), Why graduate attributes https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/GAA/Why+graduate+attributes)

Sharpe, R., Beetham, H., et al. (2009). "Learners Experiences of E-learning Synthesis Report: Explaining Learner Differences." [Online] Retrieved 10 June, 2009, from https://wiki.brookes.ac.uk/display/JISCle2f/Findings.

Sharpe, R. and Benfield, G. (2012). "Institutional strategies for supporting learners in a digital age." Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences (ELiSS) 4(2).

Sharpe, R., Benfield, G. and Francis, R. (2006), ‘Implementing a university e-learning strategy: levers for change within academic schools’, ALT-J, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 135–51. Retrieved 21-12-2013 from: https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/e26e6693-425a-c980-5faf-b0fadbdde3e7/1/.

InStePP – Institutional Student ePioneer Partnerships. Final Report.