Making History in the Digital Age

Vicki Dale1, Mira Vogel1, Paul Walker2, Zubin Mistry3 and Margot Finn3

1E-Learning Environments, 2Centre for the Advancement for Learning and Teaching, 3Department of History, University College London

Main contact: m.vogel@ucl.ac.uk

http://pixabay.com/en/london-silhouette-skyline-city-147791/

Rationale for Making History Group Project

• To promote research-based learning (Healey, 2005) in new first year history curriculum

• To help students develop:– Digital literacies (Mahara, iPads)– Historical skills (original research, primary sources)– Other employability skills (groupwork, communication, time

management, critical thinking, presentation)

• To encourage student engagement with London’s rich historical past

• Complement to parallel ‘Writing History’ course

(Wordle of text from the course handbook)

Design of student project

• Groups of 6-8• Decide their research

question • Website using different

media and modes• Three group essays

including one on teamwork process

• One 20min presentation• Weekly logs of planning

and progress

Assessment criteria not specific to web genre but originality double-weighted.

A single mark shared by all group members.

Comparison for Teaching Committee - http://goo.gl/HEcCu2

• Assessment would be single mark per group; in need of show space more than collaborative space

• Operational issues loomed large (academics convinced that tech would pose the problems)

Staff choice of platform

Technical questions are pedagogy questions are ethical questions

What risks do we anticipate

and how can we manage them?”

Should all students have

the same powers? Should they

have maximum powers?

e.g. should students have a Member role or an Admin role in their Mahara group?

e.g. how can students balance ownership and sharing?

e.g. what do students need to know about assessors’ needs?https://myportfolio.ucl.ac.uk/view/view.php?id=41235 (not public access)

Delclaux, Ruumi, Helm, McBurnie, Cassir, Saunders, Tushingham, and Rist, 2013.

Some of the other questions we settled

• Do local deadlines have any grip on work embedded from third party sites?

• How might students who are reluctant to directly edit each other’s work influence each other?

• Would an exemplar group space help or interfere with creativity?

• How can students best be inducted to Mahara en masse?

Evaluation

• Student survey (response 33/150=22%)• Focus groups (n=5)• Interviews with PGTA tutors (n=8) and course leaders (n=2)• Interested in ascertaining views about:

– Groupwork– MyPortfolio (Mahara)– Assessment process– Skills developed

Groupwork

• Generally positive– Friendships formed– Learned to solve issues

themselves– Students found own niche

• However…– Evidence of dysfunctional

groups/social loafing– Tendency for male students

to predominate• Weekly logs

– Added transparency– (Staff) stimulated students

to work– ‘Sanitised’ version of events

“You could tell some of them [the weekly logs] were a very artful constructions, and not entirely true.”

(PGTA tutor)

Student survey, n=33 Students (survey & focus groups) and tutors (interviews)

MyPortfolio (Mahara)

• Generally positive– Good support from ELE– Easy to use, students did not

require additional support– Good way to showcase

student work• However:

– Limited functionality, problems embedding, design limitations

– Students left using MyPortfolio to last minute

– Used mainly by IT savvy students

– Not a suitable group ‘working’ space

"I didn’t have a single student … who said they couldn’t use the platform … The platform as a whole wasn't an impediment, and that's crucial because it was of course meant to be a vehicle, it wasn't supposed to be the thing that the course was about.“

(course leader)

Student survey, n=33 Students (survey & focus groups) and tutors (interviews)

Assessment

• Generally straightforward for tutors to mark– Weekly logs helped tutors, though

they made an effort to assess ‘finished product’

• Mixed student views on peer assessment– Some found it easy, some felt

criteria were vague

• Mixed views on allocation of ‘group mark’– Some thought fair, others not fair

“All members of the group should not receive the same mark. There should be at least one element of the course which is individually assessed to give every member of the group the incentive to commit to working as a team, otherwise a few members of the group can get away without putting in any effort and still get the same mark as a person in the group who worked the most.”

(student)

Student survey, n=33 Students (survey & focus groups) and tutors (interviews)

Skills• Digital literacies

– Range of literacy levels– Using other internet tools– Students saw relevance of

blogging as a medium

• History skills– Primary sources– Original research– Historiography– Material culture

• Other generic skills– Groupwork, working with others

professionally– Communication & presentation– Time management & organisation– Referencing– Interviewing– Writing– Dealing with ethical issues

Student survey, n=33 Students (survey & focus groups) and tutors (interviews)As a result of the MHGP, I consider myself to be more effective at …

Conclusions and other observations

• Commended by external examiner• Engaged students successfully in primary research from day 1 • Tutors (PGTAs) saw themselves as facilitators rather than

information-transmitters• MyPortfolio (Mahara) fit for purpose although limited

– Recent upgrade allows for more flexibility

• Evidence of functional and dysfunctional groupwork, including ‘sanitising’ groupwork accounts and unequal division of labour

• Assessment straightforward though some reluctance towards shared group mark

• Other observations: So much follows from the assessment strategy.

References

• Delclaux, A., Ruumi, A., Helm, C., McBurnie, C., Cassire, J., Saunders, K., Tushingham, P., Rist, R. 2013. Welcome to Hooray for a 4a3 foray into History's MyPortfolio Page. Making History group project webpage [not public access], UCL.

• Gourlay, L. and Oliver, M. 2013. Digital Literacies as a Postgraduate Attribute project. Available at: http://jiscdesignstudio.pbworks.com/w/page/50732695/Digital%20Literacies%20as%20a%20Postgraduate%20Attribute%20project [Accessed 3 July 2014]

• Healey, M. 2005. Linking research and teaching: exploring disciplinary spaces and the role of inquiry-based learning. In: Barnett, R. (ed.) Reshaping the University: New Relationships between Research, Scholarship and Teaching. McGraw Hill/Open University Press. pp.67-78.