learning - Academic Conferences Limited

Jake Leith et al.
For the summative assessment staff were obliged to use the School’s prescribed paper based
summative assessment feedback forms, it was therefore not possible to provide feedback
electronically, via the Turnitin software, and so staff did not benefit from the anticipated efficiencies in
administering this process. This will be addressed in the next academic year so that online marking
can be incorporated.
7.4 Technical support
Course design and implementation was conducted on an ongoing basis throughout the year of live
testing. Neither of the main staff involved have a technical IT background, so it was vital to have a
flexible and responsive point of contact for IT support within the University. One of the University’s
Learning Technologies Advisors supported the unit’s development and was available throughout the
course’s delivery. This proved invaluable in enabling staff to undertake the work involved.
8. Review of work carried out
The design and live testing carried out so far has highlighted a number of recommendations which are
set out below, and will be supplemented with further information gathered from student focus groups
in September 2011:
Elements of the course already identified as best suiting an online approach are those lectures
with more “technical” content – online delivery allows learners to follow these at their own pace,
and also allows differentiation of delivery to take place via online exercises;
Elements of the course that best suit a face-to-face approach fall in to two categories: the initial
introductory and briefing sessions (these proved invaluable in identifying online problems early
and also “humanise” the blended learning environment from the start) and secondly the lectures
from visiting practitioners.
Key resources: The infrastructure required for online delivery was already in place. Hardware
requirements for staff were minimal (e.g. large flat screen monitors for online review and
assessment, MP3 recorders for podcasts and P.C.’s with up-to-date web browsers).There has
been a reduction in the need for physical space for lectures – this is significant as the cohort size
requires the use of a large capacity lecture theatre. Staff have also been able to use their time
more flexibly – for instance podcasts and lectures being recorded in advance, and assessment
conducted without the need to access and share hard copy documents.
Comparison of cohorts: to date as already noted there has been little discernable difference in the
responses obtained from the two year groups. We will follow this up in our focus group work.
9. Conclusions
From a student perspective the online element has not been detrimental to the subject area.
The issues and concerns raised by students, are that they feel that they are computer literate but, do
not have the skills to translate this into formal learning.
Whilst they feel confident with their usage of computers and internet services in specific areas
(Facebook is used externally by many), students cannot translate the skills they have into the formal
learning arena. However their experience of these services make them a critical audience when
considering the design and quality of the online learning delivered through the University’s learning
environment.
It is important that students are provided with clear technical standards and understand the
technologies that will be used to deliver the online content and that time is built into the curriculum
allow time to try these out, to provide them the opportunity to resolve any technical glitches.
Whilst students’ response to the delivery online is broadly neutral, they are quick to recognise the
benefits associated with this form of delivery and the flexibility that this affords them.
Staff need to consider carefully the layout and design of the online space within the virtual learning
environment to ensure that this provides a logical and consistent experience to the students.
406