Project Board: 23 October 2007

The Project Board met yesterday. The key messages were as follows.

1. Evaluation is critical. We have to be able to show the impact of the interventions that we have made. We need, therefore, to be collating evidence for the claims that we make and that includes baseline data. Baseline data should evidence the current state-of-play (i.e. pre-intervention).
2. On WP1: both engagement and non-engagement with the PGCert wikis need to be captured. So we need to know what action plans were produced by users and how were they implemented. But given that we currently have around 25 participants not engaging we need to know why (e.g. technophobia, lack of time/interest).
3. On WP2: on the work with Design Management Programme Leaders, in developing a marketing plan for prospective students, we need to capture what works and what doesn’t and track this through with students who arrive on the programme next session (after the project ends). There is a spin-off in this work in AAD as staff who were previously less engaged with e-learning are pushing forward with the development of multi-media. Note 1: we are also working with HR on evaluating their approach to coaching as a leadership activity. Note 2: we are working with a sub-set of Teacher Fellows on using social networking and bookmarking tools to lead pedagogic research development across DMU.
4. On WP3: the developments in Registry, ISAS, Library, SPS and HLS Faculty Office need to be grounded so that they are relevant rather than abstract. For instance, Library users need developmental sessions that enable the to produce a knowledge base in the form of a wiki that helps them achieve their aims.
5. On WP4: podcasts and webcasts need to be evaluated in the context of the curriculum. How are they helping student learning and enhancing face-to-face experiences? How do they signpost debates or developments?
6. On WP5: the critical issue is mapping the gaps in provision for students when the come into DMU. So work with English in the Workplace students on providing guides for students and with Abi Moriarty’s Transitions project needs to ascertain what those gaps are and then measure the impact of what we put in place in the faculties/Library. Capturing the student voice is critical here, but it was felt that students need something to engage with first, before they add to or develop it. This deeper engagement with the student voice might be another spin off for the project.
7. On WP6: Steve Mackenzie’s Web2.0 collaborative learning sessions with staff will support the work that we are doing in Second Life with staff development. So we need to ensure that these sessions are evaluated for impact. We also need to transfer those sessions into SL, to evaluate the impact for staff of coming together to explore social networking and bookmarking technologies collaboratively. This might include linking SL to ma.gnolia.com or del.icio.us or ning.com for use in SL, but where the outputs were saved in a defined space in ma.gnolia.com or del.icio.us or ning.com. This would enable staff to get-to-grips with SL, but also to learn about social networking and bookmarking.
8. WP7/dissemination: it was felt that there would be scope for a publication, perhaps with NIACE, with our CAMEL, for a cross-institutional evaluation. The HEA Research Observatory may also be interested in this approach. Once he CAMEL had met, a HEA briefing would be useful, possibly as an entry on the Pathfinder blog. We need to think about best dates for the symposium.
9. The Board highlighted that we would need to grapple with the issues around the interface between institutional and non-institutional technologies. E.g. archiving from or access to technologies that we do not own and cannot control.
10. Sustainability is key – how do we ensure that the project’s outputs are embedded or built upon once the project ends? Kathryn Arnold and I will develop a series of briefing papers for SMG, ULTC, FLTCs and OMG, highlighting the value of this project to DMU. It might also be worthwhile discussing how best to get this information disseminated from ULTC into the faculties.
11. Evaluation: did I mention that already?

Project meeting: 25 September 2007

So we met yesterday to let the teams catch-up on each others' work-packages. The progress reports have now all been posted on our Blackboard-based Wiki. Team members who weren't there should read the reports. We are also using the Wiki for conference reports and to flag relevant project outcomes and issues.

Work-package headlines from yesterday are as follows:
1. WP1: There are issues of maintaining momentum with PG Cert HE staff who are planning to teach and actually teaching. The assessment for the PG Cert students has been revamped to include e-learning. The June group are editing action plans and we need now to offer them follow-up sessions. [Action: HC and RH]

2. WP1/WP6: Steve Mackenzie is delivering some synchronous development sessions on pedagogical and technological issues with members of the PG Cert HE and Faculty of HLS. We will evaluate this approach to test its sustainability. Library front-desk staff may also benefit from this approach, as their shift-work impacts upon access to professional development. [Action: SM and AB]

3. WP3: There are issues of maintaining momentum with Library staff who are thinking about using Web 2.0 approaches in their work. We intend to offer developmental sessions, linked to staff development reviews. [Action: AB] We also intend to review the ISAS approach to using Wikis as knowledge bases [Action: RH] The team also intend to review the non-technical issues around the conversion of extant support and training materials for a Web 2.0 age. [Action: JT, MYK and AB]

4. WP4: the iTunes issue for catching and feeding Blackboard-hosted podcasts t users has been resolved, so that the podcast tool now works with iTunes. A key issue is the apparent reticence of users to be recorded for the production of webcasts. We have feedback to suggest that some users do not like hearing or seeing themselves on-line, or committing to this type of “publication”. This is a potential issue that will require intervention with specific teaching teams in order to build effective local, coping strategies. Initial evidence suggests that few students use or subscribe to podcasts, so there may be a cultural issue for staff teams. The third issue arising is the support we can offer staff in answering the question of streaming vs podcasting.

5. WP5: case studies will be produced for AAD, BAL, Hums and Library in the use of tools to support first-years in student-student communication. [Action: HC to talk to Jo Leese in DSU re: student reps' experiences of tools like Facebook]

6. WP6: Our Second Life Island has been purchased and activated, and staff who registered an interest have been invited in. Twelve staff are registered so far, and a user group has been formed. A building party is being held on 15 October. Subsequent staff development events will be planned and delivered by the user-group. A meeting was held with Howard Rheingold in the IOCT in September to discuss ways forward with SL. We intend to use his videos to prime some of our developments. Steve Mackenzie is delivering some synchronous development sessions. We will evaluate this approach to test its sustainability. The DMU e-Learning Pathfinder team have a Facebook group. There is no protocol for its use, but its development will be mapped as a project management and dissemination tool.

7. WP7: RH has been in contact with NIACE about the publication of the project’s findings. [Action: RH to meet with JC re: conference]

See also: http://www.pageflakes.com/dmupathfinder

Matters arising:

• headsets and webcams for all team members;
• monies to be re-charged this week with covering letters to budget holders; and
  
• access to iTunes for all team members.
  

First Project Board meeting

Our first Project Board meeting was held yesterday, and left me feeling confortable with what we are attempting to scope and develop in this project, and its relevance to both internal an external agendas. I have a list of things to do, which is always a bonus:

1. a few edits to key documents, like adding some stuff on CAMELs to the Project Plan for the Steering Group;
2. chasing-up our invite to the DSU to sit on the Project Board;
3. collating a document that sets out our communication plan [i.e. the differences between our various blogs, the role of the wiki and the CAMEL]. On this, I'll be meeting with Alan Brine and Steve Mackenzie about Pageflakes;
4. work with Tina Barnes-Powell in Art and Design about developing a case study for WP2;
5. contact the University of Chester Pathfinder team about WP3 [Malcolm, this one's for you!!]; and
   
6. pop over to see Sally Smith, Team Leader in ISAS, about WP4 [with Alan Brine], to explain what Web 2.0 work we are planning with Library Services and that we might mirror in ISAS.

Our external friend, Terry Mayes, mentioned that the scope of our project is quite broad for one year. We discussed that the project would need to work in a focussed way [with specific teams or technologies] across a broad front. We noted the need for each WP team to base-line current practice, so that we can look at impact for each WP area. We also highlighted the possibilities for scholarly outputs from the project: articles; conference papers; and books.