presentation of work around vle minimum standards at the north west alt sig (7/5/14)

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

peter.reed@liverpool.ac.uk@reedyreedles#54332