Wednesday 30 October 2013

Undergraduate Uni Tech Preferences: Part 3

This is the second in a series reflecting upon the results from the EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research ‘(ECAR) Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2013’ report published in September, and what implication there are for applying learning technologies. (Part 1 & Part 2 in the series is published.)

Theme 3: Students are ready to use their mobile devices more for academic work, and they look to institutions and instructors for opportunities and encouragement to do so

Sophisticated use of technology increases year-on-year. This increases expectation for technology use within learning and teaching. Students generally look to their lecturers and the institution to advise them on the best uses for the technology they own to enhance their educational experience. Students expect anytime, anywhere access to course content and want to use their personal digital devices both inside and outside the lecture environment. The areas for enhanced technology use that are of greatest interest to them include:

  • more use of lecture capture,
  • more robust and sophisticated use of the CMS/VLE,
  • integrated class use of their laptops,
  • online collaboration tools.

There is more of a difference of opinion in the use of students’ own tablets and smartphones within the teaching environment, but still with a majority wanting increased use of these technologies.

With regard to the use of the CMS/VLE, students want to see greater sophisticated use by lecturers. Almost all HEIs represented in the survey use a CMS/VLE. The median of courses integrated into the CMS/VLE is 60%. It is estimated within the report that 70% of instructors use the CMS/VLE and that 50% of these only use the basic entry level features of the system. This means that the resources in the CMS/VLE are being vastly underutilized. This is probably why students feel that they want greater use.1 Students also want more timely feedback via the system and a more standardized approach to the CMS/VLEs implementation across their curriculum.

“Set a unified standard for online courses. Every professor likes to set up things differently, so it takes a great deal of time to get acquainted with their setup. If all teachers use the same structure, this problem would be eliminated.”


Student quote from survey response, p23

With lecture capturing, almost 75% of students are interested in greater lecture capture activities. However they don’t just want a video of the lecture made available, they are also looking to access more of the instruction material (notes and slides), problem sets, sample questions, and related resources. These could be made available via the CMS/VLE. Where lecture capture facilities aren’t available, around a quarter to a third of students are now using their mobile devices to record lectures and approximately half are using smartphones to photograph information.

The survey found that there is a tendency for undergraduates to own two or more Internet-capable devices. However, there are demographic biases to this. Statistically, undergraduate ownership of all the five main devices increased from the previous year. The order of ownership (greatest first) is laptop, smartphone, desktop computer, tablet, and e-reader. Between 85-90% owned a laptop. Interestingly, only laptops and smartphones had higher student ownership than was seen in the general adult population for the main five types of devices. Ownership of smartphones was higher amongst younger than older students, but tablet ownership was the reverse. So laptops continue to be classed by students as the one device that is very/extremely important. The device seeing the biggest jump up in this rating scale is the smartphone, though it still resides way down compared to the laptop and indeed behind the desktop. But there is a tendency for restrictions on use of such devices within the lecture theatre. Whilst there was an acknowledgement and some sympathy by students for the banning of such devices during lectures, due to the potential for distracting themselves and others, and because there isn’t universal ownership, there is a desire to see them integrated more into the learning experience. And the areas where students could see a benefit for use in lectures included to look up information, to photograph information, to access digital resources, to record the lecturer, and to participate in activities.

There are limitation highlighted by students to using smartphones, including:
  • Inadequate battery life2
  • Slow network connection3
  • Device usability issues
  • Cost of data service
  • Limited access to network4
  • Cost of device


Despite these perceived or actual limitations the use of mobile devices to access services, application, and websites (SAWs) provided by the institution has increased over the previous year, though satisfaction with these SAWs is down over the same period.5

1 There needs to be better information about faculty use of the CMS/VLE. This work needs to be scheduled here at the institutional level.
2 There could be a case for convenient charging stations across campus.
3 Improvements in wireless network services might be necessary.
4 There can be problems with some devices connecting to the wireless services.
5 This could be investigated locally via our student surveys.   

Monday 28 October 2013

Undergraduate Uni Tech Preferences: Part 2

This is the second in a series reflecting upon the results from the EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research ‘(ECAR) Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2013’ report published in September, and what implication there are for applying learning technologies. (Part 1 in the series is published. Part 3 will follow shortly.)

Theme 2: Students prefer blended learning environments while beginning to experiment with MOOCs


“When it comes to modality, college students seem to recognize effectiveness when they see it. Their preference for blended learning environments tracks well with the findings of recent large meta-analyses of the efficacy of different ways of integrating technology into higher education. And students’ long-standing desire to retain some degree of face-to-face contact with their [lecturers] persists, even with the increasing sophistication of online methods of interaction. Even for people who have never known a world without the Internet, the human touch is valuable.”  p15

Even though blended learning isn’t fully mainstream (though about 80-85% of students have taken a course with some online elements), students continues to specify it as their prefered mode of study and the way they learn the most. The report intimates that students have a desire to access course materials “anytime, anywhere” and communicate face-to-face with their lecturers.

The survey also highlighted the result that older students are more likely to favour online-only courses rather than their younger student counterparts. This could be because older students tend to study more part-time, which is an indicator of their other commitments (work, family, etc.) increasing the requirement for greater flexibility in their study patterns.

Looking specifically at online courses, more students took an online course than the previous year (as would probably have been anticipated), however few of them are undergraduates. One interesting point to emerge is that the demographic profile of students taking traditional online courses is generally the reverse for students studying a MOOC. However, there aren’t many studies looking at the undergraduate student population’s reaction and engagement with MOOCs. In the past year the percentages of undergraduate students enrolled at a HEI who have taken a MOOC are, in the USA 3%, Canada 4%, and other countries 6% as emerged from the survey findings. Perhaps these students should be considered as the innovators or early adopters. Interesting, about 75% of students didn’t even know what a MOOC was.

“ECAR focus group students were asked about MOOCs by acronym, by the spelled-out name (massive open online course), and by the names of common MOOC providers (e.g., Coursera, Udacity,edX, MITx, etc.). Despite this variety of opportunities to recognize this unique medium for instructional delivery, blank stares were returned.

When prompted about their interest in taking a fully online course, offered by a premier instructor and with highly polished and produced course content, they seemed interested until they were informed that they would be in the course with 10,000, or 30,000, or 100,000 other students. At that point they scoffed at the idea and reiterated that one of the things they like about their current education paradigm is the ability to make personal connections with their instructors.” p19

This might suggest that MOOCS are not an imminent threat to traditional HEIs or existing study programmes. Possibly they can be viewed as an alternative platform supplementing the existing set up whilst allowing a possible expansion of the HE market.

Perhaps paralleling this is the idea of some new form of accreditation, probably digital and open badges. Currently students wouldn’t generally use a digital badge in their application portfolio to prospective employers. As they gain greater familiarity amongst students and employers this might change. There is probably a need for cross-institutional badge-curation and standardized issuing criteria. If such credentialing does increase in popularity then some self-managed professional electronic portfolio would be appealing. Perhaps LinkedIn already provides this service.

Thursday 24 October 2013

Undergraduate Uni Tech Preferences: Part 1

The EDUCAUSE Center for Analysis and Research (ECAR) Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2013 report was published in September. I have read through the report and analyzed what I see as the significant points to inform an evidence based approach to learning technology implementation. I’ll summarize these in a short series of blog posts.

Background


The 2013 ECAR technology survey was sent to  approximately 1.6 million students at 251 college / university sites across 13 countries. There were 113,035 respondents. Throughout the report statistics were broken down by country: U.S.A., Canada, and other countries.

It is a longitudinal study that helps to recognise trends in undergraduate technology use in their studies.  "Reviewing 10 years of study shows how students are generally slow to adapt to new technologies and practices, especially where it relates to their academics." p3

 Findings from the study have been grouped into four main themes this year.
  1. Students' relationship with technology is complex - they recognise its value but still need guidance when it comes to better using it for academic study.
  2. Students prefer blended learning environments while beginning to experiment with MOOCs.
  3. Students are ready to use their mobile devices more for academic purposes, and they look to institutions and instructors for opportunities and encouragement to do so.
  4. Students value their privacy, and using technology to connect with them has its limits.

Findings


Theme 1: Students' relationship with technology is complex - they recognise its value but still need guidance when it comes to better using it for their academic studies


Students have a tendency to be circumspect in the ways they integrate technology into their academic lives. This trend has persisted over several years. Educational technology need not be flashy or greatly innovative for students to appreciate it. They appreciate the Content Management System (CMS) / Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), asynchronous discussions, and online course contact. About 75% of undergraduate students believed that their academic outcomes were aided by technology. A similar proportion believed that technology better prepared them for future education. However, only around the 60% mark agreed that the technology used in their course prepared them for the requirement of the workplace post graduation. Those students who had an increased interest in being better trained or skilled in the use of technology had higher expectations for their preparedness in the workplace.

"Students are generally confident in their preparedness to use technology for coursework, but those who are interested in more technical training favor in-class guidance over separate training options." p10

Students who responded by saying that it was very or extremely important to be better trained and more skilled in using available technologies to learn, study, or complete coursework were asked to give their preferences on how to receive such training. The largest proportion of such students would prefer training to be provided by their course instructors, rather than dedicated courses provided by institutional technology staff or indeed by their student peers. They much prefer a face-to-face mode of delivery above online training. And the majority prefer it to be designed like or included into traditional courses. A reasonable proportion would also accept this training designed as on-demand web resources. Far fewer would like on-demand help desk support designed training. For length of training course, short-term format received the highest single response count. However, as with much of the report's findings the combination choice highest selection was for full-length training opportunities from their instructors as part of their course. These findings suggest that students aren't very interested in receiving separate "digital literacy" courses, or for that matter even on-demand web resources or help desk resources.

"Basic technology resources, such as the institution's website and the CMS/VLE, are the most pervasive and most valued." p11

The most used and what students considered the most important technologies came out as the institutional website, the CMS/VLE, and the institution's library website. Though they have all shown a slight decline in usage from the previous year. E-portfolios has also levelled off at about the 50% mark.  

Reading into the survey results, perhaps the areas of technologies with greatest potential over the next couple of years are:
  • E-books or e-textbooks
  • Open educational resources (OERs)
  • Simulations or educational games.

These are deemed to be in the experimental stage for most students currently.

About 70% of students said that they had used freely available course content / OERs over the previous year though for most their usage was only nominal. Only about 10% said that they used OERs all the time, although it is a higher value for older students. An open ended response question asked how students could recommend to their instructors how they could incorporate freely available course materials; they suggested using them as learning aids, as supplemental information sources, and to give different perspectives on a topic. This, they believed, added value by providing more examples and enabling the revisiting of complex or key points outside the lecture. The majority of those who responded could identify resources or activities that related to their academic objectives. Khan Academy was often cited as used by students for supplementary OER purposes.  " . . . it's nice to listen to other styles of teaching like Khan Academy." p12

E-books, e-portfolios, and simulations or educational games are being "experimented" with by students. Generally, they have only been used within one course. However, there was also a substantial minority for each of these technologies that hadn't used them at all. The report highlighted that it should be noted from the EDUCAUSE Core Data Service (CDS) for 2012 many institutions have sparsely deployed some of these technologies and far less have broadly deployed them.

Theme 2 will appear in the next blogpost in this series.

Wednesday 9 October 2013

Using Google Apps for learning and teaching - an overview






Google logo


Photo Credit: Tiger Pixel via Compfight cc

Introduction


From Apps Scripts to perform mail merge and use forms as quiz tools, through to the use of Google Sites to create a lightweight VLE, we’ve had a quite a few postings looking at the use of Google Apps over the last 18 months, and some of them in some depth. So in the run up to another new academic year, we thought we’d take a step back and take a bit of a general overview of how we can use these tools to support learning and teaching. I’ve been doing a few presentations on this recently so as well as this posting, 

I've done a recording of a few of these, which will enable me to illustrate some of the points below with some demos. The recording I’m using for this is available here goo.gl/76xjix.







What are “Google Apps For Education”?


Firstly it;s probably worth making sure we know exactly what Apps we are talking about when we refer to the “Google Apps For Education”,  or GAFE Suite. The core apps included in these are


Mail
Calendar
Docs (including text docs, spreadsheets, presentations, drawings and forms)
Sites
Groups


These are the ones that are covered by the special agreement that universities, colleges and schools enter into with Google that govern certain aspects of data protection, intellectual property ownership and a few other factors - i.e. the sorts of things we would want to have in place if we were running these services in house, such as our VLE and web servers. It’s worth making this distinction as Google offer so many other services, such as YouTube, Google + and Blogger, and these are so easily accessible from our University accounts that they all appear to be part of the same thing, but there are important differences in the terms and conditions that govern their use, and that might make them unacceptable for “official” University use.


Before looking at some of the Apps more specifically, there are a few they all have in common, which we think make them suitable for supporting learning and teaching. Firstly, all the Apps above are based around an infrastructure that fosters collaborative working. Collaboration, where we work together to achieve a shared goal, is of course a hugely important element in learning. At University, as in life, people learn by constructing their own knowledge, and this is in part achieved by interacting and working with others.  Google Apps allow this very easily, and the way we have our Google domain set up at Sheffield means that this collaboration can take place amongst staff and students alike.  The Apps are also fairly easy to use, which means in many cases we can get on with what we want to do without the technology acting as a barrier. They are also web based, which largely means that they are easily accessible to anyone with a browser, without having to install any software, or worry about managing versions and incompatibilities.


Setting up appointment slots with Calendar


Whilst the Calendar App may not look like the sort of tools with which we can ascend the dizzy heights of social constructivism, there are a few features within it that can help in the administration of learning and teaching. One of these is the ability to create Appointment Slots. Appointment Slots are a specialised type of Calendar entry, which allow you designate time slots in which people can book to have appointments with you. You designate a chunk of your time, say 2- 4 on monday, allocate the length of the slots, and then Calendar creates the slots for you in a specific version of your Calendar. This has it’s own URL, which you can then distribute amongst your students, and so is ideal for arranging tutorial slots, supervision meetings etc, without having to have some kind of physical sign up sheet. Once an appointment with you has been booked, it creates an entry in both yours and your appointees’ calendars. As well as simplifying the booking procedure, colleagues who use this tell us that it also vastly improves attendance at tutorials. If this seems a bit abstract, it’s demonstrated in the recording at around 05.50.


Other things to bear in mind with the Calendar, is that that it can also be used to schedule access to resources as well as people. This could be rooms, items of equipment, lab apparatus etc. Calendar also greatly simplifies arranging meetings with people too. You can use it “manually” to visibly identify gaps in your colleagues’ calendars, or you can use the Suggested Times feature to go and hunt down times when a given list of people are available. So no more Doodle polls or typing in lists of availability to send to people in emails, which are of course totally out of date by the time they read them and reply…….


Real time collaboration using Docs



Collaboration proper becomes a lot more apparent when we start looking at using Google Docs. Google Docs are in fact subdivided into text Docs, Spreadsheets, Presentations and Drawings. They all do pretty much what you’d imagine from their titles. They also have several key features in common. They are all pretty simple to use, as they have focused on just those core features that you would use most of the time when using say the Microsoft equivalents. They are also all “cloud based”, which means all the work you do in them is normally stored on Google’s servers, not on your own computer. I find this particularly useful, as you never have to worry about copying your files onto a memory stick to take home with you - as long as you have an Internet connection and a relatively up to date browser, you can access the latest version of your work from anywhere. Being cloud based in this way, it also enables them to be so easily shared out with others for collaborative work. All you need to do is specify the email addresses of your collaborators and you’re in business (they have to have Google accounts though - whether privately, through work, school or University). You can collaborate with your colleagues both synchronously or asynchronously. When you do the former you see each other’s cursors on screen in different colours denoting where in the document they’re working.


Either way, what this crucially means is that you don’t have to email copies of document files round to your colleagues, and hope that everyone’s has got the discipline to make sure that they are storing and working on the latest versions of files. Even with Track Changes on in Word, this can be a nightmare, as can being the poor soul who has to make sense of collating all the changes back into one document. A useful safety net here is also the Revision History function, that stores incremental versions of the document as it is being changed. It also indicates each author’s contribution at any stage by different colored text. This can be particularly useful should you need to resolve any disputes about who has done what with your students.


These features lend themselves extremely well to supporting a myriad of collaborative exercises with your students, and are demonstrated in the recording between  11.30 and 25.15.  As an example, a class of students could e divided up into groups, with each group collaboratively writing a Doc about a sub-topic they are studying, similar to how a Wiki is constructed.. Other suggested uses for Docs could be for submitting draft essay plans that you can comment on for giving formative feedback, or for collaboratively authoring and commenting on PhD or other research supervision meetings. You're really only limited by your imagination at this point and there are many many sites on the web illustrating proposed ideas for their use.


Collecting Data with Google Forms



Forms, because of the way they capture data directly into a Google Spreadsheet, offer a very versatile learning tool. If students are tasked with collecting data or measurements in a lab or field class, the tutor could create a single Google form into which the students could add their data. This would populate a spreadsheet which can be shared by the whole class, so there’s no need for the tutor to collate data into a single repository. The process is so speedy this can be done in a classroom environment and the class’s data can be viewed immediately for analysis and interpretation.


Forms do not just have to be limited to conducting numerical data - they can also gather qualitative data. An approach I’ve tried a few times is to use Forms in a classroom setting to help collect work resulting from small group activities. Students were set a group exercise - in this case to design how the GLOMaker tool (http://www.glomaker.org/) could be used to create an online heritage resource for presenting to the public. Rather than fill out their ideas on a Google form and then these could be viewed and discussed by the whole class in the plenary. The underlying spreadsheet was then shared out with the whole group afterwards giving them the capacity to go back and reflect on the whole group’s work


Forms can also be used to collect survey data for yours or your students’ research projects. This importantly eliminates the need to use external services such as Surveymonkey. Please remember though if you are collecting survey data from people that you  may need research ethics clearance, and you will need to adhere to Data Protection guidelines. A final attraction of forms is that their underlying Spreadsheets allow a very rapid summarising of your responses, in a combination of bar charts, pie charts and summaries of free text responses. The use of forms is demonstrated in the recording between 25.21  and 30.30

Website creation with Google Sites


Google Sites also present a huge range of opportunities. The digital literacy skills acquired in constructing a Site are very valuable, as we expect more employers to require familiarity with new forms of communication and publishing. Sites allow students to plan, create and publish a website via a single tool, without the need to worry about hosting and uploading files.


In addition, Sites offers full access collaboration control. As well as creating their own Sites, students can share Sites amongst themselves, or individual students or groups can easily be given read access to a full site but only write access to a part of it. They can create sub-pages within their area. into which they can add new content, media, or “Gadgets” - small self-contained widgets allowing a range of functions such as displaying a google calendar or playing an audio clip. They can also browse through the work being done by the other students or groups on their course.


Sites are also very easy to use, which means that students can be shielded from some unnecessary complexities whilst being able to focus on the task at hand. This is normally to gain and demonstrate a knowledge of how to structure and present information on the web, rather than gain mastery of HTML or very complex web design packages. Because Sites are part of our Google Apps domain, there is no need to worry about where to host them, and they are online as immediately as they are created.


We’ve had a number of excellent uses of Sites in Sheffield over last few years, and All About Linguistics  is a great example of these. Level 1 students in Linguistics were divided up into groups, and each group was set a topic in introductory linguistics to research. Each group was also given their own area of a Site set up by their lecturer, Gary Wood, into which they would put their findings using a combination of text, images, and any other appropriate resources they wanted to use. Because the Site was set up using Page Level Permissions, each group had write access to their own areas but could see  the work being done by all the other groups, which allegedly fostered a healthy level of competition between the groups and raised the collective game accordingly. The resulting collaboratively created Site (http://allaboutlinguistics.com/) is now used by the School of English as a powerful outreach tool with schools, where linguistics is rarely taught as a discipline in their own right.  The level of engagement that the students had with the project was quite palpable, as is visible from a presentation given about the project available at goo.gl/OuBJNx. We weren’t the only people to be so very excited by this project too, as in 2012 it won the first ever Joint award from Google and the Association for learning Technology for the best use of Google Apps in learning and teaching (goo.gl/9vRHxA)


There are many other uses for Sites apart from getting students to create them in this way - a huge array of Site templates are freely available to use which enable activities like blogging, portfolio creation and many more. Google Sites are demonstrated in the recording between 30.34 and 38.25


Important Considerations

There are a number of important matters that you must consider before using Google Apps with your students. These are fairly easy to resolve and are valuable learning opportunities for students in their own right.

Copyright.

Understanding and respecting the copyright of others is an essential component of contemporary digital literacy skills, whether in academia or the commercial world. Google  Docs or Sites must not contain any copyrighted media,. This is particularly important using these tools as it is so easy to publish directly to the Internet using them.


Data retention
Any assessed work created using Google Apps that counts towards students’ final degree classification must be retained by the department according to the same guidelines governing other forms of assessment. We strongly recommend that as part of the submission process, students transfer the ownership of any such work to the department, using a departmental email address as the new owner. This will then enable the department to retain the data and to “freeze” the work in its submitted state. For more advice on this contact mole@sheffield.ac.uk

Privacy

There have been concerns over the use of Google Hangouts On Air with students. These are video conferencing sessions that can be conducted via Google+ and recorded for subsequent viewing. Because of copyright implications, and the way in which these Hangouts broadcast any meetings directly to a YouTube channel, we would strongly advise colleagues not to use these with students.


Please note this problem only applies to hangouts On Air - conventional (unrecorded) Hangouts do not suffer this problem


Contact us

For those reading here at Sheffield, If you are interested in exploring the possibilities offered by Google Apps in learning and teaching our staff can help get you started, and provide advice on some of the issues involved, including managing submission of work, and giving students necessary copyright guidance. For more information contact mole@sheffield.ac.uk