Developing Digital Literacies

Plymouth University Institutional Story

Developing Digital Literacies

Plymouth University Institutional Story

Project Information

Project Title (and acronym)

SEEDPoD Student Experience Enhancement thru Driving the Plymouth Embedding Of Digital literacies

Start Date

14/07/2011

End Date

31/07/2013

Lead Institution

University of Plymouth

Partner Institutions

Association for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE)

Project Director

Prof Neil Witt

Project Manager & contact details

Prof Neil Witt

nwitt@plymouth.ac.uk

Dr Anne McDermott

amcdermott@plymouth.ac.uk

Project website

www.seedpod.org.uk

Project blog and Twitter ID

www.seedpod.org.uk

Design Studio home page

http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/50732781/SEEDPoD%20project

Programme Name

Institutional Innovation

Programme Manager

Sarah Davies

Document History

Version

Date

Comments

1.0

31/05/13

Draft final report for comments

2.0

25/07/13

Final Report

SEEDPoD Project

Final Report

Anne McDermott

Neil Witt

Rob Stillwell

June 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

50SUMMARY

1HEADLINES7

2KEY DRIVERS8

2.1Strategic drivers8

2.2Existing Skills and Practices9

2.3Curriculum Design and Delivery9

2.4Institutional Champions9

2.5Students9

3PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY10

3.1The Institution10

3.1.1Partner institutions10

3.2Project Staff11

3.3ALDinHE11

3.4Stakeholders12

3.5Baseline Audit12

3.5.1Strategy, policy13

3.5.2Curriculum Design Processes14

3.5.3Human Resources14

3.5.4Technology environment15

3.5.5Student Support15

3.5.6Staff Support16

3.5.7Student Baseline Practices17

3.5.8Staff Baseline Practices19

3.5.9Curriculum design and delivery20

3.6Models used22

4APPROACH23

4.1Conceptual models23

4.2Stakeholder engagement and communication24

4.3Changing roles26

4.4Strategic change26

4.5Infrastructure26

4.6Developing people26

4.7Managing activities27

4.8Changes to the project27

4.9Evaluation28

5DELIVERABLES and BENEFITS30

5.1Outputs, outcomes and impact30

6OTHER IMPACTS39

6.1Organisational change39

6.1.1Single point of entry for Digital Skills39

6.1.2Business case for unified digital literacies booking tool40

6.1.3Biennial survey of student use41

6.1.4Staff development41

6.2Cultural change42

6.3Unintended outcomes43

6.3.1Curriculum work43

6.3.2DL Skills Module NW43

6.3.3ASTI department and roles43

6.3.4ASTI Working Groups45

6.3.5Data management45

7SUSTAINABILITY AND EMBEDDING OF PROJECT OUTPUTS46

7.1Outstanding47

8LESSONS LEARNED and REFLECTIONS48

8.1Digital literacy audit and contextualisation48

8.2Key Messages48

8.2.1Senior manager buy in is essential49

8.2.2Evidence, evidence, evidence49

8.2.3Change can be good49

8.2.4Use every opportunity49

8.2.5Use existing networks49

8.2.6Definitions can be a distraction49

8.3Reflection on lessons learned49

APPENDIX A PROJECT EVALUATION LOGIC MODEL50

APPENDIX B PROJECT DISSEMINATION53

0 SUMMARY

Plymouth University has been committed to investigating and embedding Digital Literacy for a number of years. It was identified as a priority in the Universitys 2008-2012 Teaching and Learning Strategy and a number of DL areas were investigated in 2010 by a JISC funded Building Capacity project.

The SEEDPoD project has built on earlier work by undertaking a range of activities including

Audit of systems, policies, infrastructure and data

Collating views from academic and support staff on use of, and practice with, existing software and hardware systems and identifying Digital Literacy concerns

Surveying staff and students, and running focus groups around the current and future use of technology, confidence in using technology and identifying Digital Literacy and other support needs

Recommending institutional change on Digital Literacy issues around:

Infrastructure

Support

Curriculum Design.

At the start of the project, Plymouth like many HE institutions went through a rapid process of change following the publication of the Students at the heart of the system White Paper. The process and outcomes of these institutional changes resulted in a number of key opportunities that allowed the SEEDPoD project to make a significant impact on the embedding of Digital Literacy in to many key areas of the Institution. These included:

Strategic: to ensure Digital Literacy is part of new institutional strategies

Process: to embed Digital Literacy into new and existing processes, such as the recently introduced Performance Development Framework

Sustainable: to embed into Digital Literacy into Curriculum Design

Restructuring: to design and implement a Digital Literacy support system that impacts on all areas of the institution students, academic and professional support staff

These changes have been made possible because the project was able to utilise unexpected opportunities by providing evidence, advocacy and direction. It has been successful in embedding Digital Literacy into Plymouth Universitys

Digital Strategy

Teaching, Learning and the Student Experience Strategy 2013-2020

University Strategy 2020

Academic Partnerships Digital Strategy.

These strategies contribute to Faculty/School Plans, which, through the Performance Development Framework, create a focus for staff Digital Literacy development needs. These are then fed through to appropriate support services, a significant part of which is offered through a new department - Academic Support, Technology and Innovation (ASTI). The recommendation for the ASTI structure was also based on the SEEDPoD baseline recommendations.

ASTI is made up of the SEEDPoD project team, Learning Technologists, and the newly created roles of Information specialists and Digital Skills Developers. In total ASTI has 35 members of staff and includes the following functions:

Strong focus around Digital Literacy

Faculty support via Learning Technologists based centrally and in the faculties

Part of Technology and Information Services, to facilitate embedding and sustainability of innovation

Single point of entry all Digital Literacy training, support and resources

Developing a new Curriculum Design approach

Focus on community development.

The opportunities taken by the project and the impact it has had on strategy, process and institutional structure has resulted in an embedded, sustainable approach to institutional understanding and adoption of Digital Literacy.

1 HEADLINES

The most outstanding impact of the SEEDPoD project has been its effectiveness in embedding the digital literacies agenda into a range of areas of the institution.

It has been successful in providing the evidence and advocacy to get Digital Literacy (DL) into the key statements of Plymouth University aims that are its

Digital Strategy

Teaching, Learning and the Student Experience Strategy 2013-2020

University Strategy 2020

Academic Partnerships Digital Strategy.

These strategies contribute to Faculty and School Plans and the new Performance Development Framework (PDR), which replaces the appraisal system, draws on these plans to focus staff development. DL needs are identified through the PDR and fed to appropriate support.

SEEDPoD has also been active in this area in proposing improvements to how support will be accessed by both students and staff. Outcomes from this include work that are in progress are

Single point of access

Unified digital literacy courses booking tool

Digital literacy skills module for students for 2014

ASTI working group for DL support for postgraduate students

ASTI working group for DL support to new Plymouth students at induction

ASTI working group to examine how best to communicate and engage with stakeholders.

ASTI (Academic Support, Technology and Innovation) itself came into being as a result of the findings of the SEEDPoD baseline report and the Plymouth 2015 Review of University services. It is comprised of the SEEDPoD project team, Learning Technologists, and the newly created roles of Information specialists and Digital Skills Developers. In total ASTI has 35 members of staff.

Another area that will have a huge impact on the Plymouth student experience in the next year is that of curriculum design. The audit carried out by this project revealed a number of issues resulting in the formation of the Curriculum Design and Development Task and Finish Group chaired by PVC Teaching and Learning. This is now incorporated into a new SEEDPoD Plus project that will be making changes to curriculum processes and data management as part of the Plymouth University Curriculum Enrichment Implementation Group.

The project has run 20 DL workshops and webinars that have examined DL through the lens of a particular piece of technology, in this case an iPad. This was chosen due to its perception by staff and students as a cutting edge piece of technology and that a number of schools and faculties have introduced them for teaching purposes. The Talking about iPads/Digital Literacies workshop has also been run as webinars for SEEDPoD partner, ALDinHE.

2 KEY DRIVERS

When the project was conceived, Plymouth University recognised that DL, to a greater or lesser extent, was having an impact on all staff, students and institutional practice and it had already undertaken a small scale DL review as part of its 2009-2012 Teaching and Learning Strategy. This work highlighted areas for development, such as the need to better integrate university strategies and priorities into the process of course design, monitoring, review and validation and to ensure consistency of the use of technology across all programmes.

There was a need to build on this by undertaking a wider and deeper study to investigate the DL needs of a range of stakeholders and to identify a range of appropriate interventions required to make a step change in adoption of the digital skills across our stakeholder groups and to promote the 'normalising' of DLs as an integral part of the student experience across the University and partner further education institutions.

2.1 Strategic drivers

Theme 9 of Plymouths 2009-2012 Teaching and Learning Strategy addressed the role of Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL):

To harness and exploit new technologies to enhance the teaching and learning experience.

Teaching and Learning Strategy 2009 2012, University of Plymouth

Specifically this centred on provision of flexible access to materials, support for staff to teach flexibly and providing the necessary infrastructure necessary to enable these aspirations.

A TEL action plan was developed as part of the Universitys Teaching and Learning Strategy to address the requirements of the Universitys strategies and priorities whilst maximising the effectiveness of institutional investment into TEL and to exploit the outputs and outcomes from our externally funded projects. It aligned the University with the HEFCE strategy, JISC vision and the Higher Ambitions Report as this alignment will assist in aligning the University with best practice from the HE sector.

The primary activities arising from the mapping of priorities in the TEL action plan were:

aligning UoP TEL services to national recommendations and good practice in areas such as e-assessment, e-portfolio, podcasting and exploiting web2.0 technologies;

the use of OER and the introduction of a Learning Object Economy;

further utilisation of TEL in assessment processes, including feedback;

enhanced and co-ordinated staff development across the University to support the embedding of TEL and associated pedagogies;

assisting the University in creating digitally literate students and staff.

Changes in these areas should be mediated by developments in the areas of unifying strategic priorities and stakeholder engagement and development. Building on the experiences of JISC funded UsPaCe project and the Higher Education Learning Partnership (HELP) CETL work into Communities and Communities of Practice, SEEDPoD aimed to develop cross-institutional, sustainable and scalable communities of stakeholders, linked to suitable support materials and resources.

2.2 Existing Skills and Practices

DL has a much wider scope than skill acquisition. It should equip students and staff to maintain and grow their ability to use and choose from a wide range of digital media for the purposes of communication, collaboration and knowledge acquisition - all vital facets contributing to employability in the 21st century. Indeed there is ample evidence of the centrality of digital skills and practices to many, if not most, professions (e.g. Technology Insights, 2011) but that graduates are not adequately prepared to fulfil this aspect of their future careers (e.g. Researchers of Tomorrow).

Whilst there were pockets of excellence within Plymouth University, DLs were not sufficiently embedded within teaching or staff's own practice to be regarded as mainstream. Staff were finding problems in doing so because of a systemic lack of support and supporting structures. Responsibilities were not defined and there were no institution level commitments to guarantee learners parity of experience and opportunity in relation to DL.

2.3 Curriculum Design and Delivery

Just prior to the SEEDPoD project, the JISC funded BCUP project found that students at this institution experienced a lack of consistency within academic programmes across a range of services e.g. accessing lecture materials, lecturer skills and preferences. It also noted a failure to differentiate across programmes where this would be beneficial to allow different:

kinds of communication and collaboration

professional ICT tools

modes of access to learning materials

evidence gathering and recording for learning outcomes

use of personal devices

choice of study location

teaching styles

modes of assessment and feedback.

This was exacerbated by uneven provision across the campus buildings and partner institutions.

2.4 Institutional Champions

The importance of taking a whole institution approach to digital literacies was embraced and advocated at high level by several key senior managers including Bill Rammell the Deputy Vice Chancellor with responsibility for the student experience, and internationalisation, Professor Pauline Kneale, Pro Vice Chancellor Teaching and Learning, and Professor Mary Watkins also Deputy Vice Chancellor. Other senior managers who have been key to the success of the project are Professor Neil Witt, Head of Technology Enhanced Learning, Ajay Burlingham-Bhr, Interim Chief Information Office 2011-2012 and Mark Stone Associate Professor, Head of UK Partnerships in Academic Partnerships and a project team with considerable experience of JISC projects and large education related projects.

2.5 Students

The baseline audit carried out as part of the JISC funded Building Capacity project produced a number of recommendations for further action to assist in the embedding of DLs in to the curriculum delivery (short term) and design (long term) processes of the University.

BCUP also noted that students could be effective drivers for encouraging the embedding of DL into academic practice, e.g. a module with good use embedding of DL that ran across several programmes prompted students to ask why all modules on their programmes weren't the same.

3 PLYMOUTH UNIVERSITY3.1 The Institution

The University is based in the South West of England and has 30,000 students and 3000 staff, most of which are based at its Plymouth campus. It has one of the largest and longest established HE in FE partnerships in the country, which was identified as an area of good practice by the QAA. The Partnerships Faculty brings together the strengths of an increasingly research-informed University with the local and vocational focus provided by FE institutions across the South West and has developed a genuinely collaborative approach to ensuring high quality learning for all HE students. The University is committed to harnessing and exploiting new technologies to enhance the teaching and learning experience in all its forms.

Plymouth aspires to be the enterprise university and, in partnership with business and the public sector plays a distinctive role in the development, application and exchange of knowledge in the city, the region and beyond. Lifelong learning, employability and workforce development are intrinsic elements within its strategies.

It is currently revising its Teaching and Learning Strategy. At this time, key themes are that the University will be responsive and opportunist, reflecting the changing needs of individual, professional bodies and the workforce. This is reinforced by the commitment to extend its provision to better support employers and those currently in employment and to harness and exploit new technologies that enhance the teaching and learning experience.

The University has voiced its commitment to digital literacies through at senior management level. According to the Vice Chancellor, Professor Wendy Purcell it aimed to place emphasis on innovation and ...

use of technology in course delivery, assessment, and learning resources

employability

entrepreneurship and social enterprise

flexible pathways - part time, modular - which technology can help to knit up

e.g. PebblePad - given digital literacy skills

placements, internships, work experience - again which technology can support

global citizenship.

3.1.1 Partner institutions

University Plymouth Colleges (UPC) faculty is a partnership with 18 institutions in the South West of England. The partnership consists of mostly colleges of further education that are offering higher education in further education (HE in FE) validated by Plymouth University. UPC covers a vast area running between Gloucester, Weymouth and Cornwall and in the last academic year approximately 10,000 students were registered, though since many were part-time, the FTE (Full Time Equivalent) figure was around 7,000. These awards include around 350 Foundation Degrees, 80 HNCs (mostly embedded in the former), 5 HNDs, 15 Bachelor's degrees and a variety of CPD offers of up to 60 credits.

Plymouth University is responsible for assuring academic standards of these programmes part of which includes ascertaining how students will interact with technology, particularly in relation to mode of delivery.

3.2 Project Staff

The project was made up of team members, already in place, with experience, knowledge and networks gained from a range of externally funded, technology and partnerships related projects. These are shown in Table 3.1 below

Project title

Focus

Main aims/benefits

HELP CETL

http://www.help-cetl.ac.uk/

Development and support of 40+ Communities of Practices

Tomoye knowledge management system

Videoconferencing network (18 centres)

Enable remote practitioners to share good practice, resources, experience virtually

UPlaCe Repository

www.uplace.org.uk

None directly but supporting access to learning content

Supporting academic staff to search, access, use and repackage Learning Objects; enabling teaching/learning materials to be used across contexts

UsPaCe

http://www.uspace.org.uk/

Wide range of learning skills and attributes, particularly for work-based and foundation students.

Web 2.0 services to support learning.

Personalisation of learning

Personalise the learning experience (iGoogle)

Share resources by tagging (Del.icio.us)

Asynchronous collaborative working (mediawiki)

Peer/progression student support (ELGG)

Collaborative distance working (Google Docs)

Pineapple project

http://www.pineappleproject.org.uk/

Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL)

Recording and showcasing achievements, planning learning

Emphasis on APEL in HE in FE setting

APEL processes for to multiple stakeholders

Diagnostic tool, tracker, outcome recorder

Core Pineapple engine usable for

- other kinds of competence mapping

- curriculum design at Staffordshire University

OER projects:

C-Change/EDOR and Learning from WOErk (LfW)

Access to learning content

Addressing needs of remote learners

Supporting flexible & online learning

Development of open access online learning materials in a range of subject areas, especially climate change and learning from work.

Building Capacity University of Plymouth

Digital literacy generally (this audit and associated activities)

Use of TEL by students, especially podcasts, OERs and other teaching/learning materials online, e-assessment, e-portfolio

LLiDA tool capture Plymouth TEL experience

Lecture Capture and on-the-fly creation of video material, for storage in UPMedia;

Investigated CAA options

Further deployment and use of PebblePad

DL audit and recommendations

Table 3.1. Team members experience with digital literacy focused projects at Plymouth University.3.3 ALDinHE

The Association for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE) is a professional association for Learning Developers that evolved from a JISC mail discussion list.

Members are interested in helping students to develop their study academic literacies, of which the digital element is recognised to be increasingly important.

3.4 Stakeholders

The table below shows stakeholder groups that influenced the development of the project and a brief indication of their role. Role titles given are those that existed at the outset.

Stakeholder

Role in Seedpod

Students

Perceptions and direction of project engagement with DL and related technologies

Student union

Initial stakeholder discussion

Regular liaison with VP Education and Welfare

PVC Teaching & Learning

High level institutional champion with key role in relation to curriculum changes

Acting CIO

High level institutional champion with key role in relation to technology changes

DVC Bill Rammell

High level institutional champion

Programme Teams

Perceptions and direction of project engagement with DL and related technologies

Learning Technologists

Wide experience of developing of DL of staff and students

Subject Librarians

Staff IT Trainers

Human Resources

Associate deans Teaching and Learning

Implementation of Teaching and Learning Strategy

ALDinHE

Focus on sharing lessons learned and challenges

Programme and Cluster

Created focus on sharing lessons learned, challenges and solutions

Wider sector

Sanity check

Aligning with national and international best practice

Table 3.2. Stakeholder inputs in SEEDPoD project.3.5 Baseline Audit

Persistent themes have emerged from consultation and conversations with staff and students at a range of levels and from a variety of services and faculties.

In relation to existing digital literacies, it was a point of agreement that students and academic and support staff come to the university with very different levels of interest, competence and confidence in the use of ICT. Yet there was no institutional norm related to digital literacy, or even an institutional definition until the start of the SEEDPoD project, just an expectation that staff will either have the skills to support students, or individuals will be able to obtain these skills through academic practice or personal development.

The factors that influenced an individuals future development vary according to:

personal interest

what is brought to their attention

what is used directly as part of their programme of study

module choice.

However, a number of factors unduly influenced an individuals access to, and the development of the skills and practice associated with digital literacy. In part this was due to a confusing choice of tools and support that:

tend to lack visibility

can be fragmented

lack coherence

sometimes overlap.

This highlighted the need to promote tools and systems and the context in which they can be used. Also there was a necessity to ensure the correct level of support available to all users.

The use, relevance and efficacy of systems also required review to ensure access to a portfolio of systems, tools and support that meet user needs. In some instances, important university-wide systems had no or vaguely articulated ownership therefore no one took responsibility for maintenance and development. This highlighted the requirement for governance for all systems and the need to ensure developments are sustainable and can be embedded in on-going strategic developments.

Please see the SEEDPoD project Baseline Report for a more full explanation of these findings.

3.5.1 Strategy, policy

Table 3.3 shows the documents that contributed to the Plymouth University aspirations in terms of its digital literacy offering to students at the time of the baseline study.

Document

Skills/Attributes/Learning Experiences

the institution is committed to supporting

How will support be provided?

Teaching and learning strategy

(Theme 9 Technology Enhanced Learning)

Support for technology enhanced learning experiences (course level & personal access)

Personalisation of the learning environment, and more flexibility in curriculum delivery

Enhance services available.

Investigate creation and 3rd party learning objects

Coordinate and embed support for TEL

Establishing a TEL User group

Effective management of learning resources

Increase use of ICT in assessment/feedback

Enhanced staff development

Services and content (including OER) fit for purpose and based on user needs

Strategic plan

Develop autonomous learners, through placements, internships and volunteering etc.

Enterprising, innovative, entrepreneurial stud-ents able to engage in life enhancing research

Graduates who can contribute to a future-facing, knowledge-based economy.

Students with a social conscience (ethics, sustainability, values, community awareness)

Technology to support placements, internships and volunteering

Appropriate support on-demand

Create a dynamic research environment

Exchange/dissemination of knowledge with bus-iness, professions, community & policymakers.

Embrace e-business

Further develop social enterprise and entrepreneurship opportunities.

Develop a seamless pathway of educational opportunity for young people in the region.

Embedding Enterprise strategy

Innovation, entrepreneurship and creativity; diversity awareness; inclusivity; sustainability awareness; social enterprise

Competitions such as FLUX, Enterprise Awards

Embedding these values into the curriculum (mechanisms unclear?)

Internationalisation strategy

International and cross-cultural awareness

Curriculum enhanced by introduction of more pronounced global, cross-cultural perspective.

Students will benefit from interaction with fellow students from different backgrounds & cultures

Community engagement strategy

(indirectly) enterprise: social enterprise, global awareness, sustainability awareness etc.

Learning and development in local (city/region) area including work with schools, colleges, partner employers, community agencies

Opportunities to develop global citizenship (local employer & community group partnerships)

Partnerships in learning with schools & colleges

Support for developing social enterprise capacity

Commitment to sustainable development and carbon reduction activities

Developing City of Plymouth as a learning city

TEL Building Capacity plan

(see BCUP report)

Employability Centre/Careers terms of reference

Careers framework for skills

Build the no going into graduate employment including new media and ICT related jobs.

Self-employment and hybrid career portfolios as a positive goal.

Employability and entrepreneurship skills framework to all programmes

Individual student support in building CV, making applications, finding and undertaking placements

Individual support across learning lifecycle in planning, reflecting and building evidence for personal employability (drop-ins, workshops)

Plymouth Award

Advanced understanding of discipline

Skills for academic and professional arenas

Engage with modern ICT

Grow creativity, self-confidence, employabi-lity, business awareness, professionalism and socially responsibility

Develop the Plymouth Award as a scheme

Embed use of PebblePad for reflection and recording activities/achievements

PA ambassadors (students)

View from Plymouth Graduate Destinations (via Careers)

>90% of all jobs require general ICT skills Over 60% Plymouth graduates require specialised ICT skills

'Modern' and 'new' graduate jobs pre-dominate in the Plymouth destinations:

Other strategies reviewed but found to have little relevance: HR (focus on enterprise and leadership skills among staff), equality and diversity, sustainability,

Table 3.3. Policy and strategy documents that address digital literacies (abridged from BCUP, 2011).3.5.2 Curriculum Design Processes

New programmes and substantive changes to existing programmes had to undergo a University approval process, using processes and templates defined in the University Academic Regulations. A substantial amount of documentation related to these processes.

The programme specification focused on the domains of

1. Knowledge and understanding

2. Cognitive and intellectual skills

3. Key and transferable skills

4. Employment related skills

5. Practical skills

The approval/substantive change to a programme guide document mentions

offer opportunities for students to improve their ICT skills.

However, neither the programme specification, guidance notes nor checklist mentioned any skills relating to digital literacies although such skills could be part of 1 to 5 above. The same applies to the definitive documentation for 2010-2011.

In the case of UPC partner institutions, programme design and approval is a joint undertaking between Plymouth University and the institution concerned.

3.5.3 Human Resources

Plymouth University was in the process of moving from an appraisal system to a performance development review (PDR) approach. PDR is aimed at allying individual development with the Institution's strategic ambitions. Digital literacy has been identified an area that should be included in role profiles to articulate organisational expectations regarding a minimum skills requirement in this are and the possibility of mandatory training for staff who do not meet this expectation.

3.5.4 Technology environment

Student open access provision in Plymouth totalled 302 machines running Windows XP, 69 available 24/7 but most were available from 8am to 10pm. There were some additional, usually basic, machines in Schools. Staff had access to a fleet of desktop PC's and laptops from Viglen that was 4 years old, running Windows XP. The University was increasingly using significant numbers of Apple desktop, laptop and mobile devices.

The 18 UPC partner HE in FE institutions had a wide range of infrastructure. Some had very limited broadband connectivity whilst others have not difficulties in this respect. Use of interactive whiteboards was virtually universal and far more embedded than in the accrediting HEI.

Plymouth University was primarily a Microsoft institution and as such the main university systems in use were:

Microsoft hosted cloud service called UpCloud using live@edu for students only

Microsoft Office 2010 standard on all fleet machines.

Tulip, Plymouth's in-house bespoke development, using Microsoft's SharePoint as its platform available for staff and students at Plymouth.

Intranet, using Microsoft's SharePoint providing access to services and content.

Other systems in use were

Moodle was more or less complete across partner HE in FE institutions.

PebblePad was the main ePortfolio tool, also available to partner institution students.

Online Assessment & Coursework Submission through SCOLAR (in-house solution), Turnitin, QuestionMark Perception, PebblePad, XERTE, Turning Point PRS.

Survey Tools were Perseus, SurveyMonkey, QuestionMark Perception, Google Forms.

Online and Distance Communication provided through Microsoft Communicator; Video-conferencing and Skype, though most student and staff computers lacked webcams, micro-phones or speakers and were in unsuitable locations to support collaborative working.

Podcasting tools and software available for staff including a podcasting studio though access varied depending on location.

Numerous Library / Research tools Voyager catalogue; Metalib gateway; Symplectic Elements research outputs management system; Pearl research repository, primarily for storage of electronic theses, Endnote reference management tool; Aspire reading lists tool.

UPC partner students able to access to all Plymouth University library resources.

Specialist administrative systems in place across the University.

3.5.5 Student Support

DL support was found to be divided into provision for students and provision for staff. The University primarily operated on the principle that skilled and knowledgeable teaching staff would be able to transfer their own learning to their students. They were supported in this by eight separate service providers, each with their own focus of interest and their own means of delivery.

The BCUP audit found that these services were changing their approach to supporting students to reflect changes needs, expectations or priorities related to digital literacies in the following ways.

More use being made of online guidance and support e.g. by learning development (email/audiocast feedback) and the TEL team

More use of podcasting and the use of iTunesU

An ambition to put greater emphasis on enterprise and professional learning using authentic tasks and authentic settings.

Developing more open/flexible frameworks for curriculum delivery (e.g. Work based learning framework, with a variety of learning outcomes captured and assessed.

Supporting remote students (e.g. workbased, international distance and open access learners) by enhancing capacity in distance delivery (OER projects, staff development)

Growing awareness of digital literacy issues across services and the need for coordination

Consultation with students about enhancements to the learning environment e.g. mobile access to course information, cloud computing solutions, podcast lectures.

The SEEDPoD interviews with staff indicated that there was no systematic means of identifying struggling students. One senior academic reflected that whilst they were not aware of a demand for more student support with IT but they were not sure if they would know. If it became an issue extra help would be provided.

Support for Students. Direct support for students was identified by staff as coming from a number of sources:

Personal tutor;

Subject tutor;

Learning development team;

Subject librarians/academic support;

Informal student support of peers.

There were also a number of services who get asked for help, and to varying extents give it, even though student support is not in their remit:

Faculty Learning Technologists;

Central Learning Technologists;

Open Access Desk;

Faculty-based IT support staff.

There was some overlap in provision and evidence that service users found it difficult to find and choose the appropriate agency of support. For more detail

3.5.6 Staff Support

In 2012, Information and Learning Services (ILS) had primary responsibility for the development and management of:

Library and information services;

ICT infrastructure;

Generic computing facilities;

Management information services;

Strategic technical and operational responsibility for corporate web based services.

The part of ILS with direct impact on digital literacies was the IT Training and Skills Development team consisting of 4 trainers delivering a range of courses to academic and support staff. These were mostly face-to-face, and Microsoft product focused, including support materials on providing 'how to' skills e.g. how to use PowerPoint. A schedule of courses was published from which staff can pick and choose anything they feel is relevant.

The Teaching and Learning Directorate provided strategic support for the Teaching and Learning Strategy 2009-2012. To accomplish this it managed nine student and staff facing sections, two of which, Educational Development and Technology Enhanced Learning, had particular relevance to digital literacy.

Amongst it's activities, Educational Development ran the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) programme aimed at staff engaged in professional and academic practices including: teaching, learning, assessment, research and professional development in HE. Part of this includes an optional Technology Enhanced Learning negotiated study module.

Plymouths TEL Team consisted of 12.1 FTEs (6.5 FTE Faculty LTs (FLTs) and a central LT team of 5.6 FTEs). The FLTs were on short-term contracts. The central team was managed directly by the Head of TEL, who in the case of each FLT shares management responsibility on a partnership basis with the relevant ADTL. Both groups of LTs promoted innovation and advised academic staff, thereby enriching student learning. At the interface between technology and pedagogy, all major and most minor TEL developments at Plymouth would not happen without them.

The central LT staff were responsible for:

Supporting users of whole institution initiatives, e.g. Turnitin, QuestionMark Perception (used by 150 staff and almost 10,000 students);

Student learning and support systems, e.g. Wrasse, iHub and ePDP (with ILS);

Horizon scanning and the evaluation and promotion of developments such as the XERTE RLO tool, Academic Resource Systems and Web2.0 technologies;

Whole institution staff development and sharing of practice (e.g. through LTHE, workshops, supporting the annual e-learning conference and support of CAA).

The FLTs undertook four main areas of work:

Development of faculty/school projects and initiatives, from module to programme level;

Identification, customisation and development of a range of discipline-specific e-Resources;

Meeting faculty/school/individual staff development needs in partnership with ILS;

The local implementation of central initiatives (e.g. e-portfolio/PebblePad, TULIP, CAA, etc.).

UPC faculty had a blended learning coordinator and a staff developer working to support partner institution staff. They organised events, workshops and drop in sessions on the main Plymouth campus and at colleges. They also produced handouts and online resources to support HE in FE staff.

3.5.7 Student Baseline Practices

As part of the BCUP project students worked in small groups to describe which technologies they used to support their studies and how. The list of technologies available was initially drawn from an earlier STROLL study but was augmented by the students themselves.

There was considerable agreement across all the focus groups and sub-groups about the technologies they valued for study, shown in Table 3.5.

Essential

Google (valued by all)

Google Scholar and Athens/online journals (valued by all but one sub-group)

Valued

lecture notes, textbooks, Tulip, MetaLib, Voyager (all 'official' course materials)

Google Books, citation software/endnote (highly valued by the few who used it)

e-portfolio (highly valued by the few who used it, mainly for the Plymouth Award)

Background use

assignment criteria, module overview

Facebook, chat, email, Wikipedia, mobile phone (text, voice) (all for contacting other students or, occasionally, former colleagues and tutors)

Not valued (or only 1 mention)

podcasts, iTunesU, Skype, Twitter, MySites, old assignments/feedback

Table 3.5. Value of technologies used by students (BCUP, 2011).

Although the vast majority of students owned a laptop, bringing one on to campus was not widely practiced. Security concerns, carrying a large heavy weight around, charging and items being broken were brought up at focus groups as reasons for this. Memory sticks provided a way of linking study locations and gave a sense of security that important documents were safe and available. The smart phone owners used them to access course information and the non-smartphone owners said they would like to be able to do so.

All students worked at home and on campus, especially in the library and shared computing areas but differed as to which location offered the least 'distractions' to serious study. However, they varied in the degree to which they favoured one or the other, citing distraction by others as a key influence on this, which might be seen as positive or a negative.

The SEEDPoD interviews with staff revealed a variety of opinions about the DL skills of students. Students were generally reckoned to be good networkers but some interviewees felt they lacked very basic skills, particularly in relation to searching and evaluation e.g. not knowing what a journal is. Another opinion was that they were more skilled than staff and yet another, that they were not aware of any problems.

There was more agreement that students found understanding relevance and context more challenging than skill acquisition. This was not an absolute as two interviewees pointed out that very experienced, mature postgraduate students might have excellent evaluative skills yet struggle with Internet searching. It was seen as particularly important to target and present support appropriately for this group as they were extremely able in all other respects.

Information strategies Students generally had a good understanding of different information sources, and some sophisticated strategies for using them in combination. Given the importance they attached to credible references, few students had good strategies for managing the references they found.

Using learning materials from other universities. iTunesU was only known to a few students. One had stumbled across lectures from Harvard which he used to get a different perspective. However the others too worried information gained this way was confusing and potentially problematic, as their lecturers might not think it appropriate.

Google services and Wikipedia. Google, Google Books and Google Scholar were regarded as indispensable to study by most students. Students were aware of the differences between them and noted some advantages over official sources of information such as the University systems as

Social media and communication. Participants were asked whether and how they discussed work with other course members. There was some defensiveness about this, as with questions about Wikipedia, which may be because students are concerned about plagiarism. For 'checking' each other's work they tended to use email with attachments, Skype, Facebook, or paper copy

Recording information. Two participants used digital photography on their mobile phone to support their notetaking and research. One also mentioned using an iPhone app to record lecturers and tutors speaking. Another said that this was common practice, though she herself found it difficult to take in information via audio.

Using Tulip. Tulip module sites were seen as essential to study by all but one sub-group, though this was a technically sophisticated sub-group that made extensive use of other information resources.

Subject and individual differences. Students were very aware that different courses, as well as different sub-disciplines and even individual lecturers, had different protocols for finding and presenting information.

Developing strategies. Students' strategies for using technology were often a product of their course requirements, or the requirements of specific lecturers. It was agreed that there was a lack of consistency in the guidance they received about information skills and study practices, and tensions between different lecturers on the same course. Librarians were mentioned as supportive, though only in the context of the course of study. Skill in using online journals, which made the most significant impact in transforming approaches to study, were typically acquired through an induction exercise, but this seemed to come at very different points in the programme. In relation to public/social technologies, no guidance had been given to students beyond some general prohibitions on referencing Wikipedia in essays and assignments.

3.5.8 Staff Baseline Practices

As part of this project 13 members of university staff identified as representative of key stakeholders were interviewed. These included senior academic staff from all faculties and support staff based centrally and in faculties. The LLiDA institutional audit tool (2009) was adapted to make it relevant to a faculty perspective and a services perspective and these formed the basis of a semi-structured interview and were completed in full by some interviewees. In addition to these in-depth dialogues, informal discussions were held with a range of other support staff such as learning technologists.

Institutional policies and strategies should inform our IT strategy, as should requests coming through various committees such as TLWeb and the Teaching and Learning Committee but stakeholders noted that there were numerous other drivers such using up of end of year budgets, wanting to try out novel technologies, e.g. iPads, which could lead to unsupported and unfocussed purchases. Also some interviewees expressed the feeling that there was a tendency to 'stick with what we know' and areas where current staffs' skill lie. An example of this would be favouring SharePoint based systems rather than evaluate all choices and find the best tool for the job.

Views on the current systems and technologies were very freely offered and there was broad agreement about shortcomings.

There is much useful information on the Intranet but

it is difficult to find content as the search facility is considered to be inadequate

there are many broken links and out of date pages

it is not mobile friendly

the content is behind a firewall

there are either limited or no analytics so it is not possible to see how it is used

Teaching staff suggested that students like the concept but that many modules only used Tulip it as a document store, the capacity to host blogs and wikis was not generally used. Other comments were that it was overcomplicated and was 'a bit' clunky and organisation by module only is limiting.

Comments relating to SCOLAR included

time consuming - some tutors may have 800 students

difficult interface and difficult to access

more training needed

cannot load directly from the Skydrive to SCOLAR

no batch upload

not compatible with Markbook as it does not output an appropriate feed

reliance on manual input introduces a greater chance of errors.

Some staff were deterred because of early problems or unannounced changes.

Some teaching staff saw PebblePad as primarily a CV builder and did not particularly useful for this. In a faculty where many staff and students had their own blogs and websites it was seen as a safety net for those who didn't or wouldn't use other media. Teaching staff should support its use but at least one member of support staff was running sessions for students.

Microsoft Communicator was only mentioned by one senior academic manager, in relation to its inability to support non-campus based students.

Markbook is a UNIT-e plug in to record marks. However it is not compatible with SCOLAR and the impression was that it should have been trialled, not just phase implemented.

A senior academic commented that they did not know how students were Turnitin using it.

QMP has the issue that it does not input into Markbook.

New initiatives. The need for appropriate piloting and testing of new systems was identified. For example, the original QMP trial was never signed off. Ten years later it remained officially a pilot therefore support was not built into any work plan and technical issues remained unaddressed even though both piloting and support were the responsibility of a single directorate. This highlighted a need for more formalised management of new IT initiatives.

Choice and Duplication. Where services overlap, too much choice was thought be confusing by interviewees. Typified by the comment by a member of support staff who noted that file storage can be on a Skydrive, MySite, U drive, USB stick, to name but a few. An example would be the choice of 4 online submission tools, which also brings up issues of cost.

Off Campus Learning. It was noted by a number of interviewees that current systems are designed for supporting learning that is delivered on campus. If the institution wants to develop distance learning or supporting students who are based at other locations, a suitable platform will have to be implemented. A number of faculties expressed an interest in delivering distance learning but none are currently offering it. These could be bought in or developed 'in house'. The latter would require content developers. One faculty is developing modules on a memory stick with telephone support, which in more useful than web based delivery in locations where there is no Internet.

3.5.9 Curriculum design and delivery

Taught programmes of study, postgraduate and undergraduate are subject to annual review. This requests information relating to teaching, assessment and feedback, academic support, learning resources and personal development. There is no specific mention of digital literacies though related issues could be included in any one of the sections identified. There is no prompt or reminder to this effect. Table 3.6 indicates how programmes design, review and support digital skills and practice.

Who is involved in course design, review, and (re)validation

Academic teaching staff

Subject librarians

Educational development/e-learning team (sometimes)

External examiners

Professional bodies (where appropriate)

Associate Dean (Teaching and Learning)

Corporate Information and Business Improvement team

How digital skills or attributes or learning experiences are considered in programme design?

Quality assurance provides a range of documentation to support subject teams: https://staff.plymouth.ac.uk/qahbook/qahindex/intranet.htm. None of this makes reference to current learning and teaching strategies or policies.

Educational Development is responsible for providing documentary support to subject teams for programme design and monitoring, and this support is closely mapped to the QA documentation: The ED guide includes some examples that have a bearing on digital literacy and the use of technology for learning. There is no mention of how learning technologies are being used as an aspect of design or monitoring, and no mention of digital literacies or graduate attributes for a digital age, though the assumption must be that these are inherited from FHEQ, prof body requirements, subject benchmarks and SEEC level descriptors.

Support for subject teams to interpret any policies or requirements in disciplinary contexts?

It is not clear how up-to-date guidance is, from the Education Faculty in particular, or how current University priorities and strategies are iteratively reflected in guidance updates.

There does not appear to be any targeted support for subject teams as there is, for example, at Oxford Brookes, Leicester, Ulster.

Modules/sessions within the curriculum devoted to digital, information or media literacies in the context of that subject

Some subjects incorporate information literacy sessions and exercises

Some subjects incorporate induction & practice in the use of specific technologies

Students report low levels of interest and commitment - by staff as well as students - in some of these sessions; however, students also report later finding that the sessions have been valuable.

In some subjects, collaboration and communication are intrinsic to the practices of the subject, and digital means are included (by some tutors more rigorously than by others)

In some subjects, use of digital media for communication and creative expression are intrinsic to the practices of the subject.

How such modules are typically delivered/assessed

Subject librarians are the only staff mentioned besides lecturers.

Opportunities for teaching staff to develop their own capacity to support learners' digital, information and media literacies

Session on digital literacy included in PGCAP core module, along with an elective module on TEL

One-off sessions offered by ED e.g. on e-portfolio

Learning technologist team offers bespoke support to staff embedding LT

Range of expertise available e.g. JISC projects, CETLs, National Teaching Fellows (not clear how these directly influence teaching staff)

Table 3.6. How programmes accommodate digital literacies (abridged from BCUP, 2011).

Although not a formal survey, our interviews with staff indicated that the basic position of some staff being exemplary in their application and support of digital literacies, others doing a more or less adequate job and a persistent minority refusing to engage, seems to be an enduring feature. Barriers that were suggested by staff are summarised in Table 3.7.

1. Lack of recognition of Digital Literacies by the institution:

a. No mention about competence or CPD in job descriptions;

b. Not valued in promotion criteria;

c. Not part of the current appraisal process;

d. Staff who answer email about a lecture may not count it as contact time.

2. Increased workload due to more dialogue with students:

a. No time allocated for extra emailing.

3. Unreasonable response time expectations from students:

a. Fuelled by staff who respond to electronic communications day and night.

4. No minimum expectations explicit and/or enforced in relation to what is offered to students.

Table 3.7. Barriers to staff engagement with digital literacies (BCUP, 2011).

Solving these issues would be problematic as faculties can be polar opposites in their approaches to, for example, the importance of the digital literacy of its academic staff. One is trying to define these skills for future recruitment purposes and another sees it as irrelevant.

One member of support staff noted that some academics were insufficiently skilled to demonstrate and reinforce good practice. It was also remarked that tutors often refuse to answer questions in relation to ICT and referred students to handbook etc.. Another surveyed staff to find out what help they needed, this turned out to be short courses in things like 'how to use tracking in word'.

3.6 Models used

The SEEDPoD baseline work was framed around the LLiDA institutional audit tool (2009) to give interviews a consistent and comprehensive scope. It was adapted to be relevant to faculties and to university services. Those who took part were given the JISC definition of digital literacies. None felt the need to reflect on this but focussed on the aspects that were most relevant to their level and role.

The Beetham and Sharpe (2010) framework has also been a useful means of thinking about

The scope of DLs as they transition from skills to practice

The breadth and specificity of DLs as they apply to differing contexts.

4 APPROACH

Due to the frequent and significant changes from the Plymouth 2015 Review, the project plan had to be a fluid document reflecting changing priorities and new opportunities arising. A concept map was, regularly updated, was used to map priority areas and progress. Figure 4.1 shows an example taken towards the end of the project.

Figure 4.1. Inspiration diagram showing high level areas of project plan.

The working document drilled down to a much greater level of granularity in each area and linked to relevant documents and resources.

4.1 Conceptual models

In addition to using the LLiDA (in both adapted and unadapted forms) and Beetham and Sharpe (2010) framework mentioned in Section 3.6, the JISC digital literacy definitions were used as the basis for the work of this project. However, over time, it became apparent that these can be usefully grouped the roles of a consumer of digital content; a producer of digital content; and as a practitioner in the digital world. Each of these roles draws on a combination of the seven elements of DL. This is shown in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2. Digital Literacies grouped around the roles of consumer, producer and practitioner of digital content.

4.2 Stakeholder engagement and communication

Stakeholders have been engaged in a variety of formal and informal ways, which have transitioned over the life of the project. These have included project website, blog, Twitter account and RSS feed for awareness raising.

SEEDPoD has worked alongside a community of senior managers, academic and professional staff and given a voice to student stakeholders in the University and partner college and feeder institutions.

At the outset there were semi formal interviews and focus groups that were a means of engaging stakeholders, students and staff, and helping them to see skills and practices in relation to eLearning in the wider and more holistic context of DLs.

Other engagement and communication activities are shown in Table 4.1 below.

Activity

Audience

Purpose

Key Message

Project website, blog, Twitter account and RSS

HE and HE in FE academic, professional and support staff

Awareness; Resource sharing;

Important role of DLs and who can help

Progress made by project

Plymouth University committees, working groups and other relevant meetings

Senior managers;

Associate Deans Teaching and Learning;

Academic, professional and support staff;

How their areas is impacted by DL Receiving feedback;

Proposed change methodology

JISC cluster, programme and support centre events and meeting

JISC community

Receiving feedback of others experiences;

How we have achieved impact. Lessons learned

Collaboration with the ALDinHE

Learning Developers

Sharing of findings and techniques

Important role of DLs to all aspects of learning

Submission of presentations to internal conferences

Institutional decision makers and academic, professional and support staff

Awareness of DL;

Awareness of project;

Feedback from academic and support staff;

Need for a strategic approach to DL

What SEEDPoD has helped to achieve

What we are still working on

External conferences

Wider HE sector and beyond

Awareness of DL;

Awareness of project;

Sharing of methodology for institutional change;

Need for a strategic approach to DL

Workshops

Students and staff

Awareness

Sharing of practice

Confidence building

DLs are important but everybodys needs are different

Newsletters and series of 2 page how to guides

Internal and external HE and HE in FE academic, professional and support staff

Sharing of findings and techniques;

Ideas and sources of support

Pilots

Academic, teaching and support staff at Plymouth University and 1 partner institution

Digital literacy support materials and resources;

Collaboration on changes to curriculum design processes/documentation

Embedding of DL in to curriculum delivery

Case studies

Academic, teaching and support staff

Sharing of good practice using digit al approaches.

That developing their DLs can improve the student experience

TEL surveys

Students;

Academic, teaching and support staff

Project to understand digital practices and barriers;

Promote awareness of DL

DLs are valued by the institution

Table 4.1 Overview of engagement and communication activities.

There would have been significant and varied stakeholder engagement activities through the pilots. However the Plymouth 2015 review provided an unanticipated opportunity to bypass piloting and gave the project team a unique opportunity to implement institution-wide changes with the support of the Universitys senior management team. This is discussed more fully in Section 4.8.

4.3 Changing roles

The original project plan noted the need to formulate an implementation plan for embedding DL support and the need for this was confirmed by the baseline report, which concluded that there was a pressing need to develop a cohesive DL support approach for both staff and students. In particular the disparate nature of those responsible for developing staff DLs was an issue identified. The bringing together of this support would have formed the basis of the SEEDPoD pilots. However the 2015 changes gave no opportunity for a test bed due to the restructuring of a number of services. How this change was approached is discussed in Section 6.3.3.

4.4 Strategic change

Normalisation of DLs has been a cornerstone of the Plymouth learning experience. This required not only the inclusion of DL in relevant strategies but also that this was translated into action through project engagement with a limited number of University areas identified by the baseline study. These key areas were identified as curriculum design, staff development and Performance Development Review (PDR).

The means of achieving changes to both policy and practice was to be producing evidence to support SEEDPoD recommendations and to communicate this at multiple levels, from senor management down, within the University. Identifying appropriate individuals, arenas and messengers would be an important and urgent task for the project.

4.5 Infrastructure

Without the supporting technological infrastructure, there would be only limited value in having DL embedded into strategy and practice. Providing an appropriate environment, however, is a journey and not a destination therefore a follow up to a 2011 survey for staff and students would explore the direction developing technology use and practices and allow recommendations for the future.

4.6 Developing people

DL only being one of number of agendas competing for the attention of staff and students, the project took the view that strategic change would hold the key to widespread acceptance. If successful in this respect, it would be necessary to ensure that individuals would be able to develop their own digital skills and practices.

Whilst developing students as champions or change agents, either individually or in groups is hugely beneficial for those concerned, but would be unsustainable beyond the life of the project. It also presented a knowledge management challenge in that at the end of their course, that expertise is lost.

Also, though the project planned to create materials, these quickly date. It was felt that in Plymouths case a bigger challenge to developing DLs was access to, and discoverability of support and materials by developing a single point of entry for all digital skills linking to sustainable and embeddable resources, activities, cases studies etc..

In relation to teaching staff it was planned to

Develop and implement coherent and cohesive skills support

Work with HR to specify digital literacy expectations in relation to

PDR

Recruitment

Development.

To a large extent the project could see little value in distinguishing between staff and students when it came to developing their DLs, the main difference being one of context, therefore in relation to support for staff and students

Review and streamline what we already have, particularly in relation to

overlap

fragmentation

discoverability

Develop improved method of allowing users to identify and develop the skills and practices needed to be digitally literate

Investigate and develop university-wide means of promoting and sharing of good practice

Develop a framework to ensure any current and future non-generic resources can be easily repurposed for staff or student use.

Supported by

An investigation into current models and research in HE to develop a DL audit tool

Definition of a literacies module with a view to offering it as a credit-bearing module to staff and students.

4.7 Managing activities

The proposed work plan of investigation, review, benchmarking, intervention and evaluation was designed as the Institutions change methodology and was managed as part of the University Student Experience KPI led at DVC level. This entailed reporting project recommendations directly to the OVC Student Experience group headed by Deputy Vice Chancellor Bill Rammell. Regular reports were made to the Universitys Teaching and Learning Committee and monthly updates (or more frequently if needed) to the Pro Vice Chancellor Teaching and Learning Professor Pauline Kneale.

Day to day project management was conducted through a regularly revised concept map of areas of the project plan. Team members met weekly to discuss outstanding aspects of the project that were currently active. Ad hoc meetings were convened on any specific areas requiring in depth discussion. Liaison with ALDinHE Steering Group was through John Hilsdon based at Plymouth University.

For curriculum development issues a Curriculum Design and Development Task and Finish Group has been set up, chaired by PVC Teaching and Learning and membership drawn from SEEDPoD, senior academics and quality support.

Team members represent the project on a variety of other committees, working groups etc..

4.8 Changes to the project

The baseline study provided areas for targeting and a means of prioritising. This has had to be mediated by the Plymouth 2015 project, a major and fundamental 3 year, institution-wide reassessment of University central, academic and research services.

This review has impacted on nearly every aspect of the project and the resulting changes have meant that organisational structures and roles have changed or ceased to exist. The Teaching and Learning Directorate in which the project was housed was also disbanded. This necessitated the negotiation of a place for the project team that would allow it to retain its close working relationships with both teaching and learning policy/practice and with technology developments in the institution. We considered both of these vital to our continued achievement of project aims.

Another major change was the replacement of University of Plymouth Colleges (UPC) faculty by the newly formed Academic Partnerships (AP), which expanded the partnerships remit to include regional, national and international partnerships.Until the Review, the project had planned to pilot innovations with foundation degree students through the partners which would have entailed significant and varied stakeholder engagement with partner college(s). However a need that has recently been identified by AP relates to the digital literacies of staff involved in negotiating partnerships. This meshes quite well with another area to which the project team contributed, that of institutional requirements from a flexible and distance learning solution. This will require some further discussion but should relate strongly to the PDR focussed work by the project. Also the on going curriculum design work will be developed in partnership with AP.

Another unanticipated challenge was been the loss of Plymouths Deputy Vice Chancellor and the projects executive sponsor, Bill Rammell. However, as the institutional change aspect of the project is already pushing the embedding of digital literacies into strategy and policy, this loss did not present a grave threat as his successor, Professor David Coslett was fully briefed about SEEDPoD, and alongside the PVC T&L, has ensured the project still has a voice at Senior Management Level.

As a result of the Plymouth 2015 Review, a post of Chief Information Officer was created to head up the Universitys newly formed Technology and Information Services (TIS). The new CIO started work on 21 October 2012 and the SEEDPoD team had their first meeting with him on 25 October 2012. The permanent CIO took over from an interim CIO who had worked with the project to ensure that DL was an integral part of the new Digital Strategy.

4.9 Evaluation

At the outset of the project, the evaluation plan took the following form

Factor to Evaluate

Questions to Address

Method(s)

Measure of Success

Curriculum Design processes

How well the incorporation and use of DLs are embedded into this process

Focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, communities of practice, evaluation of content of pilot programmes

Due regard to DLs is normalised by the curriculum design process

Curriculum Delivery

How well the incorporation and use of DLs are embedded into this process

Focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, communities of practice, evaluation of content of pilot programmes

DLs embedded in terms of equality and appropriateness across pilot areas.

Pedagogic and Employability

Value to teaching staff and students

Focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, communities of practice

That embedding of DLs had positive effect on pedagogic outcomes and overall employability

Staff Development

Appropriateness and value of support and materials

Focus groups, interviews, questionnaires, communities of practice

Table 4.2. Proposed evaluation plan.

Ethical approval was gained for the both the project and its evaluation.

The original plan included, amongst other things, creating materials and outputs in support of digital literacies that could be piloted and evaluated in different contexts before being revised as necessary and rolled out more widely. The Plymouth 2015 review impacted this plan in two ways

It provided an unanticipated opportunity to embed digital literacies into the institution in a sustainable way therefore the project has focused on institution-wide changes to organisational structures, strategies, processes and procedures that will have a far greater impact in the long term

Materials and interventions produced and recommended by the project have proceeded directly to full implementation e.g.

the primacy of digital literacies in a digital strategy

supporting the development of the digital literacies of learners and staff via aone stop shop,which is being achieved by the newly created ASTI

SEEDPoD and ASTI creating a package of support for digital literacies for the Plymouth Graduate School. This initiative has been identified as a priority from our new Digital Strategy and will be developed, rolled out, evaluated and revised as necessary. It will then repurposed for undergraduate support and for staff support and evaluated. This is unlikely to occur during the lifetime of the SEEDPoD project.

Success here can be measured by how and where digital literacies appear in documentation e.g. strategies, programme documentation. It feels that certain aspects of progress are less easily measured so the project team is keeping a personal blog of observations, comments that seem to illuminate progress towards our aims.

Furthermore, listening to the approach of other projects at programme meetings enabled us to reflect on our approach and identify the bits we are really interested in evaluating (strategic context, identifying issues and gaps and to a lesser extent enhancing DL capabilities) and those that are not relevant to this project (building student roles, and staff roles). The evaluation support documentation has been helpful for this too. Distinguishing between these different areas has also helped us to recognise that the project cannot do everything.

The ultimate goal of SEEDPoD is to make a positive difference to students experiences and practice of digital literacy. It was expected that over the lifetime of the project we would be most likely to find evidence of this that relates to this shorter term aspects of the project that surround delivery and access. However, forgoing the pilots and opting for an institution-wide approach has resulted change that is difficult to measure in the short term, and possibly not impacting on the student experience until 2015 when academic staff have needed to take up the challenge of designing programmes with DL made explicit and learners will have experienced their first year of newly revalidated courses. In the Curriculum Delivery synthesis report it was noted that it was easier to demonstrate an effect from discrete interventions with small groups

whilst impact on the whole institution is harder to measure and present

as evidence, but has much more significance in terms of sustainability

and embedding

Lou McGill

Due to the changes mentioned in Section 4.8, the project, and by default, the project evaluation plan has been in a state of constant flux but the final position is shown in the Logic Model in Appendix A. This concept revisited at the final project cluster meeting by Jay Dempster and was found to be an excellent means of approaching our evaluation challenge.

It is difficult to show hard evidence of impact during a two year project of this nature. It would be nice to point to increased student satisfaction, recruitment, retention and employability. Even if this were demonstrable it would be virtually impossible to show a causal relationship with any degree confidence.

5 DELIVERABLES and BENEFITS5.1 Outputs, outcomes and impact

A summary of SEEDPoD deliverables and outputs, together with their impacts, is given in Tables 5.1 to 5.7 below. Column one shows the work package responsible for the deliverable and links to deliverables are given in column 3. Please note that some outputs are confidential and not available outside Plymouth University. How and for whom the output/outcome has been used is shown in column 4.

For a breakdown of short, medium and long term impact see Logic Model in Appendix A

The project is working with ALDinHE and has run two Blackboard Collaborate webinars for their members. Running a webinar was a new experience for the team, but support from Christina Hunter at Netskills and Marianne Sheppard was enormously helpful.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Report (WPI 1)

Project Plan

Project plan

To guide progress of the project in terms of work and time scales.

Updated project plan concept map in response to changes in assumptions and environmental factors

Project Management and Report (WPIs 2,3,4,5)

Project meetings

Programme meetings

Quarterly updates to JISC

Six-monthly interim reports

Final report

Interim Report x 2

To reflect on progress and direction

To inform Programme managers of progress and any problems

Table 5.1. Project Management

DISSEMINATION FOR AWARENESS, UNDERSTANDING AND ACTION

Knowledge & Community Building

(WPIs 6,7,12,16)

Community of Practice: engagement and advocacy with key gatekeepers and interested others

SMT meetings

T&L Committee

Conferences

Workshops

Seminars

Knowledge and community building on going through formal and informal channels

Webinars

Champion the case for DL with senior managers

Give evidence to influence and shape decision making

Input the DL agenda appropriately in to

various strategies

Increase student and academic, professional and support staff awareness about DL as they have attended presentations, workshops etc.

Use Cases/Case studies

(WPI 8)

Case studies detailing the process, findings and lessons learned in the form of case studies, use cases of use & implementation of best practice.

Original plan was to be 4 from each pilot area. Subsequently adapted to work with academic and support staff collaborators and showcase their digital practices in support of learning and assessment

Aimed at UP/C staff as part of engagement strategy also valuable to external audience

Video Case studies

G 1. Sustainability Literacy

G 2. Assessing Students On The Move

G 3. PowerPoint 2010 for Distance Learning

G 4. QuestionMark Perception for high stakes summative assessment

G 5. XERTE + LILIPAD

G 6. Using PebblePad for PGCAPP

G 7. Using Video to Support Group Collaboration for Design Concepts

G 8. Illustrations and animations in PowerPoint

G 9. Creating video podcasts for students

G10. Enhancing Student Experience with Twitter

G Each case study is accompanied by written

summary detailing the tools and skills needed

Promotion of instances of good practice in the embedding of DL

Validation and recognition of good practice for collaborators

Video case study approach now a part of ASTI work flow to inspire and spread good practice

Sharing of practice to be embedded TEL team PDR

Sustainable resources to underpin DL

Video case studies used within ASTI training courses provided to across the institution

DISSEMINATION FOR AWARENESS, UNDERSTANDING AND ACTION continued

Publication

(WPI 9)

Write up good practice and implementation strategies as a briefing document for the sector best practice collated from a range of depts, faculties, FEC

implementation strategies and staff development resources.

F Souffl of Success http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1647

G 10 Video Case studies listed in WPI 8 above

D Talking About Digital Literacies: Not just

preaching to the converted Talking about iPads

- 90 minute workshop recipe card http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1645

D Hints and Tips for organising a webinar

http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1903

Disseminated at Programme meeting

Webinar guide used to support Universitys new webinar services

run DL/iPads webinar for ALDinHE

See WPI 8 for case study applications

Publications and Dissemination (WPI 10)

Presentations to disseminate and active engagement with the wider community to communicate key messages from the project and promote take-up of the approach

Conference Presentations 10

Webinar Presentations 2

Digital literacy workshops 17 plus 2 webinars

see Appendix B

Posters and materials

The Digital Literacies and Digital Tools for Busy Academics guides (see Table 5.5) have been included in a variety conference packs for internal and external events at Plymouth University. These and other materials have been presented at 4 events

SEEDPoD Poster #1

http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1414

D H Understanding Digital Literacies Poster #2

http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1643

Full details of all events are to be found in Appendix B

400+ paper copies of digital literacies guide requested for distribution at PU/UPC/AP events

Guides in UPlaCe repository for download

DL Confidence log results in 2013 technology of 1200+ students to be published when analysis complete

More requests to present on project approach to institutional change

Feeding in to design of new university website to show about teaching and learning and not just about programmes

Anecdotal evidence of changing practice - see Section 6.2

Events (WPI 10)

Activities to support capacity building e.g. at least 4 staff workshops, use of Student Gateway where appropriate, attendance with support materials, signposting information, repackaged materials etc. at internal conferences, symposia etc.

Requests to run DL/iPad seminars for specific established groups e.g. Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice at Plymouth University

Requests to present about SEEDPoD and DL at, for example, BCUR conference and PedRIO conference

Informal feedback at events

Publication and Dissemination

Regularly updated project website with blog and wiki, with an RSS feed

www.seedpod.org.uk

Table 5.2. Dissemination for Awareness, Understanding and Action.

REVIEW OF CURRENT PRACTICE AND BASELINE EXPANSION

Report (WPI 11)

Baseline review of DL activity at Plymouth University

A F Baseline Report

http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1882

A F Baseline Report Summary

http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1580

Recommendations used as evidence to form ASTI (see Section 4.3)

Publication (WPI 13 and WPI 14)

Digital Literacy Mapping Mapped by Faculty, Partner Institutions, feeder institutions, STEM/Non STEM subject areas, work based learners, research students, taught postgraduate

Review of other work in this area including identifying issues

surrounding entitlement and inclusion, building on the recommendations the BCUP project

No formal report but discussion, reflection and participation in relevant programme and other webinars

See Section 8.1 project reflections on this item.

Lead to formation of 3 ASTI working groups to map and structure DL support for

Postgraduate students

Students at induction

ASTI communications

Also informing the work of the Curriculum Design and Development Task and Finish Group chaired by PVC Teaching and Learning

Knowledge Built (WPI 15)

Audit of current PU DL embedding mechanisms

Audit of Plymouth University Curriculum Design Process and Materials confidential report

Report to Teaching and Learning Committee resulting in further work in WPI 18 and 19

Table 5.3. Review of Current Practice and Baseline Expansion.

ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE

Report (WPI 17)

Report for Senior Management Team detailing findings regarding optimum levels of DL at PU

A F Baseline Report

http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1882

Student survey Report available August 2013

Plymouth University DLE specification document commercial and in confidence

Report (WPI 18.)

Implementation Plan for changes to be made in support of embedding of digital literacies (to be carried out in WPI 5 for piloting in WPI 6)

A F Baseline Report Summary

http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1580

F ASTI Report: the formation of Academic

Support, Technology and Innovation at

Plymouth University

http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1902

Digital literacy features in the following strategies

Digital Strategy http://ilsselfhelp.plymouth.ac.uk/ redirfile.asp?id=935&SID=

Teaching, Learning and the Student Experience Strategy 2013-2020 http://www1.plymouth.ac.uk/ ouruniversity/teachlearn/Documents/Teaching%20Learning%20and%20Student%20Experience%20Strategy%20Final%20with%20logo.pdf

University Strategy 2020 https://www1.plymouth. ac.uk/ouruniversity/strategy/Pages/default.aspx

Academic Partnerships Digital Strategy https://www1.plymouth.ac.uk/academicpartnerships/documents/academic%20partnerships%20digital%20literacy%20strategy_2013-2020.docx

ASTI Structure confidential report

See Section 6.3.3 for ASTI role changes

Inputting into new Academic Partnerships agreement

Informing work of the Curriculum Design and Develop-ment Task and Finish Group chaired by PVC T & L

Work in progress to create one stop shop for DL support across the university by innovating existing discovery layer with cloud asset management system

Digital Skills Developers course booking system not fit for purpose, being revised as part of Head of TELs PDR(Professional Development Review)

PDR see Section 6.1.4

Biennial survey a KPI in Teaching and Learning Strategy 2013-2020

Report and publication (WPI 19)

Briefing document and framework for changes to Action Plans underpinning PU strategies

UPC Strategy (WPI 24)

(Implementation)

Recommendations and strategy for embedding within UPC partnership

ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE continued

Knowledge built (WPI 21)

(Implementation)

Changes for strategies, processes, documentation, staff development to impact on curriculum delivery

T&L Com report on curriculum design confidential report

Summary of Plymouth University Curriculum Design and Delivery Issues confidential report

Curriculum Design: The Way Forward

Curriculum Design and Development Task and Finish Group chaired by PVC Teaching and Learning

Knowledge built (WPI 22)

(Implementation)

Curriculum Design Changes

Table 5.4. Organisational Change.

IMPLEMENTATION

Training packages, tutorials, toolkits (WPI 20)

Materials to facilitate wider take-up of the Plymouth approach. Audiences will be determined by findings from baseline study but are likely to include practitioners, trainers, students (working with ALDinHE), support staff and senior managers.

Media will

D Digital Literacies Guide http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1641

D Digital Tools for Busy Academics guide

version 1 http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1640

version 2 http://technologyenhancedlearning.net/ resources/digital_tools_for_busy_academics.pdf

D Hints and Tips for organising a webinar http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1903

D Talking About Digital Literacies: Not just preaching to the converted Talking about iPads 90 minute workshop recipe card http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1645

G 10 Video case studies in WPI 8 above

FSouffl of success http://hdl.handle.net/10293/1647

Postgraduate Researcher Digital Skills series

E 00 Overview of Guides

E 01 Writing as a digital researcher

E 02 Developing a digital profileE 03 Communicating about your research online

E 04 Mind mapping

E 05 Online surveys

E 06 Data visualisation

E 07 Reference management

E 08 Designing with multimedia materialsE 09 Video capture and editing

(repurposed for Plymouth University students from Helen Beetham/Exeter Cascade Project)

To be used in DL support for

Postgraduate students

Students at induction

ASTI communications group

Video case study of DL supported practice incorporated in ASTI workflow

Video case studies used to support ASTI staff development sessions

Building on the experience gained in SEEDPoD, ASTI is piloting a webinar service for the institution

Table 5.5. Implementation.