What I think having read a number of case studies now about innovation is not really the technology that could be seen as hugly innovative... It is the way it is used. Maybe education is not the first place that new things are tried out? Maybe educators are too busy educating?
What ever the reason I think for me the important thing is that what we have is used in a way that is best served learners and the learning outcomes.
Kathryn
Showing posts with label H807 case study. Show all posts
Showing posts with label H807 case study. Show all posts
Friday, 6 March 2009
Monday, 2 March 2009
University of Warwick - Team-based approach to developing e-resources
University of Warwick
Case Study – Team based approach to developing e-resources
Background and context
This case study looks at the development of staff training in relation to e-learning tools and materials used. The project came about when a different project highlighted the issue of lack of staff confidence and awareness of e-learning and its connection and use with face to face learning.
The programme this project is aligned to is within the Institute of Clinical Education (University of Warwick) and specifically working with a large group of practitioners (1000) studying part time on a wide range of modules (over 80). The training involved was a series of practical hands on sessions for teaching and support staff to introduce them to the theory, tools and how to embed e-learning with their current (and I assume) future work. Deliberately set up to be collaborative and share ideas, worries and understanding the series used a VLE to report each weeks sessions (again it does not say but one assumes not everyone could attend every session so the VLE would have been useful for these people), the additional attraction of a good lunch added as a good way to encourage people to attend.
The Technology used
The sessions appeared to cover a range of technologies that Warwick IT teams support for the use of teaching and learning. This included synchronous and asynchronous discussion forums quizzes, blogs, personalised content pages. The sessions also highlighted the benefits of e-learning including the flexibility of working students who need to have access to learning when it suites them (not the institution).
Tangible benefits
The case study reports a number of staff related development improvements, for example understanding, enthusiasm and confidence. They also note the uptake of IT and e-learning related activities on modules taught within the institution. They also note that were IT was not introduced related directly to groups of staff who did not attend the training.
Disadvantages
· The cost of the lunch – perhaps not a disadvantage but a consideration when money always needs to be accounted for
· The resource requirements in relation to training were high as there was a lot of duplication (Esites, face to face session and hard copy of session notes)
Lessons Learnt
Noted is the benefit of bringing staff together – (I think this is really important not only for training for a single issue in this case e-learning, it generates collaboration at institutional level and can lead to other development opportunities).
The relation between the staff and students in relation to staffs own learning
Kathryn’s thoughts
I think this is a nice case study of the slow but sure staff development achievements within many institutions (I would guess). I really like the comparison between this particular group of staff and their own students, both working professionals trying to add yet another tool to their armoury that in the long run will help them both, but all struggling with their other demands.
I think as noted above bring staff together in a formal training environment but adding informal elements (in this case lunch) is a really valuable activity for staff to network and find out about each others interests. It builds a wider since of community of practise and has other non measurable benefits.
I was interested to read about the module structure at the start where students get the hard copy etc and then come to the university for a whole week’s face to face session. This is a different method to the one we established at Lancaster where students come to the university at the start then go away …. So, something for me to think about there.
Overall I thought it was a nicely written case study that put forward the genuine but not exaggerated benefits of e-learning for staff development that focused on in-house IT resources and did not try to sell the benefits of other maybe better (maybe not) tools with lots of whistles and bells.
Case Study – Team based approach to developing e-resources
Background and context
This case study looks at the development of staff training in relation to e-learning tools and materials used. The project came about when a different project highlighted the issue of lack of staff confidence and awareness of e-learning and its connection and use with face to face learning.
The programme this project is aligned to is within the Institute of Clinical Education (University of Warwick) and specifically working with a large group of practitioners (1000) studying part time on a wide range of modules (over 80). The training involved was a series of practical hands on sessions for teaching and support staff to introduce them to the theory, tools and how to embed e-learning with their current (and I assume) future work. Deliberately set up to be collaborative and share ideas, worries and understanding the series used a VLE to report each weeks sessions (again it does not say but one assumes not everyone could attend every session so the VLE would have been useful for these people), the additional attraction of a good lunch added as a good way to encourage people to attend.
The Technology used
The sessions appeared to cover a range of technologies that Warwick IT teams support for the use of teaching and learning. This included synchronous and asynchronous discussion forums quizzes, blogs, personalised content pages. The sessions also highlighted the benefits of e-learning including the flexibility of working students who need to have access to learning when it suites them (not the institution).
Tangible benefits
The case study reports a number of staff related development improvements, for example understanding, enthusiasm and confidence. They also note the uptake of IT and e-learning related activities on modules taught within the institution. They also note that were IT was not introduced related directly to groups of staff who did not attend the training.
Disadvantages
· The cost of the lunch – perhaps not a disadvantage but a consideration when money always needs to be accounted for
· The resource requirements in relation to training were high as there was a lot of duplication (Esites, face to face session and hard copy of session notes)
Lessons Learnt
Noted is the benefit of bringing staff together – (I think this is really important not only for training for a single issue in this case e-learning, it generates collaboration at institutional level and can lead to other development opportunities).
The relation between the staff and students in relation to staffs own learning
Kathryn’s thoughts
I think this is a nice case study of the slow but sure staff development achievements within many institutions (I would guess). I really like the comparison between this particular group of staff and their own students, both working professionals trying to add yet another tool to their armoury that in the long run will help them both, but all struggling with their other demands.
I think as noted above bring staff together in a formal training environment but adding informal elements (in this case lunch) is a really valuable activity for staff to network and find out about each others interests. It builds a wider since of community of practise and has other non measurable benefits.
I was interested to read about the module structure at the start where students get the hard copy etc and then come to the university for a whole week’s face to face session. This is a different method to the one we established at Lancaster where students come to the university at the start then go away …. So, something for me to think about there.
Overall I thought it was a nicely written case study that put forward the genuine but not exaggerated benefits of e-learning for staff development that focused on in-house IT resources and did not try to sell the benefits of other maybe better (maybe not) tools with lots of whistles and bells.
University of Nottingham - Disability Support in CBA
University of Nottingham
Case Study - Disability Support in Computer Based Assessments
Background
The Special Educational Needs and Disability (SENDA) act that was introduced in 2001 added to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) that was introduced in 1992 to cover all educational establishments. Together they outlaw discrimination in relation to disability including services within Higher Education Institutions.
Institutions are responsible for making reasonable adjustments that are anticipatory of all student needs and thus not treat a disabled student (or staff member) less favourably for any reason relating to their disability. Thus they are required to make changed to all aspects of teaching and learning and general University life.
What the case study is about
The University of Nottingham has noted an increase in students applying to the study has increased but also noted the medical school applicants with disabilities remains lower than average. The medical school wished to increase the amount of electronic assessment but also acknowledged that this type of assessment could exacerbate and discriminate against some students in relation to their disability. This case study reviews how they creased an electronic assessment that could be individualised by each student thus accommodating students whose disabilities might have impeded its use.
The system
The system used was Touchstone which has been designed to provide support for a full customisation of background/foreground colours and a range of different font sizes, additional features were added to accommodate screen readers and Braille tablets as well as dyslexia requirements (this they noted was more difficult due to the wide range of requirements). On a practical level the system needed to be non-technical staff friendly thus have user-friendly interface for assessment designer, in addition clear user instructions for students and accessible for on all networked computers and not just specifically designated computers.
Implementation
The design team consulted widely throughout the university and used the university disability polices to embed the process and outcomes. Consultation included colleagues in the student support unit, timetabling administrative staff, teaching programme staff and students. The student body was informed of the changes via the VLE and students who wished to use the adaptive system were asked to report to the administrative staff that coordinated adjustments for future assessments. The student then evaluated the changes made to the system before these being implemented for use for assessments specific to the student. The adaptive system is only open to students who are declare their disability and are registered as such within the university system.
Tangible benefits
· Compliance with DDA and SENDA – both legal requirements and important for the university reputation and recruitments (Seale, 2006)
· The use of Touchstone was thought to be simple and readily applicable to network computers and importantly could accommodate keyboard stoke use and did not require mouse usage.
· Touchstone timed students exactly thus student with additional time allowance were continually aware of their constraints. In addition these students did not need to be segregated into different rooms thus highlighting their differences with other students.
Disadvantages
· The time taken to set up the system and the numbers of staff involved made it a time consuming and large project.
· Continued negotiation with students on requirements – this requires a lot of time from many staff members.
Kathryn’s thoughts
I liked this project and I think it highlights a number of things in relation to both projects in general and also more specifically projects in relation to the disability legislation.
First of all I think it shows that all projects take more time than you think they will initially. Specifically in relation to projects and disability they always take more time especially as HEI are only beginning to come to terms with the fact they have to anticipate the needs of their disabled students and as a result implement all sorts of things. It costs a lot of resources and even when they get funding they have to get the staff to work together and this is time (which we all know is not costed).
In relation to benefits not mentioned in the case study I think one of the main ones in the longer terms if the fact staff work across departments to achve a task and this is a good thing for all sorts of reasons not only in relation to the project
In relation to innovation – I am not a IT person but it seams to me that this may not be a huge innovative thing to have done on the IT front but it is on the human font. It took someone to think of this and drive the project and that is part of innovation for me.
I was unclear about why they introduced it only to the registered disabled students and why student were not able to set their own parameters on the system perhaps before they started the test. Perhaps students would have found that for example a black background with white text suited them and they did not have declared sensitivity to this…. ??
Case Study - Disability Support in Computer Based Assessments
Background
The Special Educational Needs and Disability (SENDA) act that was introduced in 2001 added to the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) that was introduced in 1992 to cover all educational establishments. Together they outlaw discrimination in relation to disability including services within Higher Education Institutions.
Institutions are responsible for making reasonable adjustments that are anticipatory of all student needs and thus not treat a disabled student (or staff member) less favourably for any reason relating to their disability. Thus they are required to make changed to all aspects of teaching and learning and general University life.
What the case study is about
The University of Nottingham has noted an increase in students applying to the study has increased but also noted the medical school applicants with disabilities remains lower than average. The medical school wished to increase the amount of electronic assessment but also acknowledged that this type of assessment could exacerbate and discriminate against some students in relation to their disability. This case study reviews how they creased an electronic assessment that could be individualised by each student thus accommodating students whose disabilities might have impeded its use.
The system
The system used was Touchstone which has been designed to provide support for a full customisation of background/foreground colours and a range of different font sizes, additional features were added to accommodate screen readers and Braille tablets as well as dyslexia requirements (this they noted was more difficult due to the wide range of requirements). On a practical level the system needed to be non-technical staff friendly thus have user-friendly interface for assessment designer, in addition clear user instructions for students and accessible for on all networked computers and not just specifically designated computers.
Implementation
The design team consulted widely throughout the university and used the university disability polices to embed the process and outcomes. Consultation included colleagues in the student support unit, timetabling administrative staff, teaching programme staff and students. The student body was informed of the changes via the VLE and students who wished to use the adaptive system were asked to report to the administrative staff that coordinated adjustments for future assessments. The student then evaluated the changes made to the system before these being implemented for use for assessments specific to the student. The adaptive system is only open to students who are declare their disability and are registered as such within the university system.
Tangible benefits
· Compliance with DDA and SENDA – both legal requirements and important for the university reputation and recruitments (Seale, 2006)
· The use of Touchstone was thought to be simple and readily applicable to network computers and importantly could accommodate keyboard stoke use and did not require mouse usage.
· Touchstone timed students exactly thus student with additional time allowance were continually aware of their constraints. In addition these students did not need to be segregated into different rooms thus highlighting their differences with other students.
Disadvantages
· The time taken to set up the system and the numbers of staff involved made it a time consuming and large project.
· Continued negotiation with students on requirements – this requires a lot of time from many staff members.
Kathryn’s thoughts
I liked this project and I think it highlights a number of things in relation to both projects in general and also more specifically projects in relation to the disability legislation.
First of all I think it shows that all projects take more time than you think they will initially. Specifically in relation to projects and disability they always take more time especially as HEI are only beginning to come to terms with the fact they have to anticipate the needs of their disabled students and as a result implement all sorts of things. It costs a lot of resources and even when they get funding they have to get the staff to work together and this is time (which we all know is not costed).
In relation to benefits not mentioned in the case study I think one of the main ones in the longer terms if the fact staff work across departments to achve a task and this is a good thing for all sorts of reasons not only in relation to the project
In relation to innovation – I am not a IT person but it seams to me that this may not be a huge innovative thing to have done on the IT front but it is on the human font. It took someone to think of this and drive the project and that is part of innovation for me.
I was unclear about why they introduced it only to the registered disabled students and why student were not able to set their own parameters on the system perhaps before they started the test. Perhaps students would have found that for example a black background with white text suited them and they did not have declared sensitivity to this…. ??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)