presentation of work around vle minimum standards at the north west alt sig (7/5/14)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation of work around VLE Minimum Standards at the North West ALT SIG (7/5/14) Work covers data captured from across the sector in relation to subscription to minimum standards, as well as internal research and progress/practice at the University of LiverpoolTRANSCRIPT
ELESIGEvaluation of Learners’ Experiences of e-Learning Special Interest Group
MINIMUM STANDARDS / BASELINEPeter ReedUniversity of Liverpool
A MEMBER OF THE RUSSELL GROUP
Minimum Standards
@ Liverpool
Sector-wideSubscription
SECTOR-WIDE SUBSCRIPTION
COMPARING STAFF & STUDENT RESPONSES(n=102 & n=840)
24 Responses Received
Aberystwyth Bath
Bristol Durham (Physics and Arts & Humanities)
Edge Hill Exeter
Goldsmiths Greenwich
Institute of EducationUniversity of London
Kent Leeds
Liverpool London School of Hygiene &
Tropical Medicine Newcastle
Nottingham Northampton
Salford Southampton Solent
Swansea York St. John
Warwick Univ. of Malta
University College London
Dedicated VLE AreaStaff Profiles
Module Description / OutlineRecommended Reading
Assessment RequirementsLecture Handouts
Schedule/BriefAnnouncements
TimetableGrading Criteria
Forums
Sample Q’s / Past PapersPlagiarismKey teaching materialsLIbrary infoMy Grades / GradebookStudent ExpectationsTurnitinReport an issueWeekly problemsPDF formatsSuggestion box
THEY IDENTIFIED
MINIMUM STANDARDS @ LIV
COMPARING STAFF & STUDENT RESPONSES(n=102 & n=840)
Drivers
LGoS
TEL Strategy
A three phase ‘audit’ of TEL across ILT provision.
Staff & Students were provided a
list
A Welcome to the area
Contact details for Leader
Contact details for others
Module Specification
Timetable / Schedule
Learning Outcomes
Assessment Strategy
Further Reading
Lecture notes/handouts
Past Exam Papers
Online submission
Formative feedback on draft
Online discussion forums
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%93%
88%87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%79%
Student suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
* ***** *
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
72%
47%
65%59%
71%
27%
37%38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%
Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Student v Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%93%
88%87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%79%
Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
72%
47%
65%59%
71%
27%
37%38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%93%
88%87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%79%
Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
72%
47%
65%59%
71%
27%
37%38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%
Statistical TestsPositive correlation between staff & students (r=0.560)
Some significant differences between staff and student responses (p=0.0002)
Significant difference between number of items selected (p=0.0001) - m Staff=9.32: Students=10.91
Significant difference between number of items selected by male and female students (p=0.0012)
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Criteria with largest staff/student difference in Minimum standards
37%
46%
41%34%
A W
elco
me
to t
he
area
Con
tact
det
ails
for
Lea
der
Con
tact
det
ails
for
oth
ers
Mod
ule
Spec
ifica
tion
Tim
etab
le / S
ched
ule
Lear
nin
g O
utc
omes
Ass
essm
ent
Str
ateg
yFu
rther
Rea
din
gLe
cture
not
es/h
andou
tsPa
st E
xam
Pap
ers
Onlin
e su
bm
issi
on
Form
ativ
e fe
edbac
k on
dra
ftO
nlin
e dis
cuss
ion for
um
s
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%93%
88%87%
84%
54%
71%
79%80%
69%
44%
75%79%
Student vs Staff suggestions for inclusion in Minimum standards
72%
47%
65%59%
71%
27%
37%38%
43%
59%
47%
58% 58%
Questions
Which criteria do we include?
How much of the student voice is enough?
Demo PSYC310CSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
DemoCSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
DemoCSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
DemoCSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
DemoCSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
DemoCSD Automation of Minimum Standards from TULIP
Agreement thus farCriteria to be included automatically…
1. Module Title & Module Code
2. Module Co-ordinator (name and email address)
3. Aims
4. Learning Outcomes
5. Syllabus
6. Teaching & Learning Strategy
7. Assessment requirements
8. Contact hours
9. Disclaimer
Next StepsHerzberg’s Hygiene Factors
Focus groups
Next StepsHerzberg’s Hygiene Factors
Focus groups
Next StepsHerzberg’s Hygiene Factors
Focus groups
Peter ReedLecturer (Learning Technology)Institute of Learning & TeachingFaculty of Health & Life Science
[email protected]@reedyreedles#54332