Digital Education team blog
  • We support Staff and Students using technology to enhance education at UCL.

    Here you'll find updates on institutional developments, projects we're involved in, updates on educational technology, events, case studies and personal experiences (or views!).

  • Subscribe to the Digital Education blog

  • Meta

  • Tags

  • A A A

    Archive for the 'Evaluation' Category

    Accessible Moodle wishlist

    By Jessica Gramp, on 20 June 2017

    The following outlines recommendations from the Accessible Moodle project to improve the accessibility of UCL Moodle for disabled students and staff, as well as improve usability for all users. These have been informed by focus groups with disabled students and staff; analysis of how UK websites adhere to accessibility guidelines; and research of relevant journal articles and accessibility guidelines.

    Our primary aim is to ensure Moodle is technically accessible using assistive technologies including ZoomText, JAWS screen-reader, Read & Write, Dragon NaturallySpeaking voice recognition software, as well as other assistive technologies commonly used at UCL. In addition, keyboard-only access should be fully supported. It is also important that UCL Moodle is usable for those with disabilities, as well as the wider student and staff community.

    In order to develop these recommendations, the project team ran focus groups with UCL students and staff with disabilities, to find out what they found difficult to use within Moodle and what suggestions they had for improvements. I have blogged previously about the background to the project and the outcomes of these focus groups.

    A number of sources were also referenced to see how Moodle could be made to better adhere to accessibility guidelines. The most important of these are the following three guidelines from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) :

    • Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA for making Moodle and its content more accessible.
    • Web Accessibility Initiative – Accessible Rich Internet Applications Suite (WAI-ARIA) for designing Moodle so users of assistive technologies, like screen-readers, can navigate and read its pages.
    • Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) for making the Moodle rich text editors more accessible.

    A number of websites were also analysed to compare how each of them implemented W3C guidelines.

    The list that follows is a wish list, which may not all be implemented, but gives us a guide for how we might improve Moodle. Although there are many other elements that are important, but not mentioned below, the following makes a start of improving the interface for disabled  and non-disabled users alike.

    We are taking a multi-faceted approach to resolve the issues identified, and work is likely to be ongoing, but here’s a list of changes we’d like to see made to make Moodle more accessible.

    Assistive Technology compatibility.

    The following recommendations are likely to require implementation at multiple levels, so don’t easily fit under any single development areas below. The project aims to achieve the following:

    • Content and editing features are available to screen-readers, or suitable alternatives are available – e.g. offline marking in Word enables in-line marking for assessments.
    • Navigation is straight-forward, with content appearing before menus and appropriate headings, links and lists being utilised to enable easy navigation using common screen-reader features. E.g. the list of module tutor names under every Moodle course name in the search results means that hundreds of links are listed to screen-reader users and sighted users are overwhelmed by irrelevant information which needs to be scrolled past, and which is particularly problematic for those with dyslexia.
    • All images have alt tags (even if these are empty), or in the case of icons that supplement text, they use ARIA tags to tell screen-readers to ignore them.
    • Accepts user input using voice recognition software, like Dragon Naturally Speaking.
    • Enables magnification by ensuring the pages display well when the browser is zoomed in or when zooming software is used.
    • Visible focus when using the keyboard (tab, space, enter and arrow keys) to navigate.
    • Supports the use of OpenDyslexi font, available as a browser plugin to help those with dyslexia read text.

    A multi-faceted approach

    The following five areas outline the different ways in which Accessibility improvements can be made to UCL Moodle.

    1. A new, more accessible UCL Moodle theme for use on desktop and mobile devices.
      • Minimise clutter, by enabling blocks to be hidden and removing extraneous information.
      • Position elements for optimal access. E.g. ensure the login is prominent and important course features are easy to access.
      • Simplify the menus, by showing relevant links only to relevant users. E.g. staff see different links from students.
      • Improve the course icons by making them larger and clearer. E.g. the maximise block link is not intuitive.
      • Show alerts to users – e.g. explaining that editors can drag and drop files, warnings of Moodle outage periods.
      • Improve navigation, e.g. by enabling links to key areas that users expect.
      • Use high contrasting colours on a pale background that is easy to read for those with dyslexia (e.g. not white).
    2. Changes to Moodle configuration.
      • Configure text editors so they encourage accessible content design. E.g. offering heading styles 3-5, removing the inclination for people to add heading 1 and 2 tags when these are used at higher levels within Moodle pages.
      • Enable global search (assuming this does not negatively impact performance).
      • Allow students and staff to personalise the interface by enabling courses to be moved up and down on the My Home page, hide and show blocks, maximise the screen or use a default width better for reading and dock blocks.
    3. Enhanced Moodle features.
      A number of plugins to Moodle exist that make Moodle more usable and improve accessibility.

      • Implement and configure user tours to help users understand how to use Moodle and point to help with accessibility features.
      • Install the course checks plugin to help staff create an accessible Moodle course – e.g. checks for assignment due dates in past, courses not reset, broken links.
      • Implement a Moodle course site map so students can easily see what is available on a course on one page.
      • Enable importing content from Word, which some users find easier to edit within than Moodle.
      • Pilot the Blackboard Ally plugin to help in the creation of more accessible learning resources and course structures.
      • Install the Office 365 plugin to make it easier to author, organise and link or embed content into Moodle (coming to Moodle core in v3.3).
      • Enable staff to add icons to help signpost particular areas of their course and help people who prefer these visual cues, as opposed to having to read excessive text.
    4. Improved training, staff development and support.
      • Develop a course for Moodle editors so they understand how to develop accessible Moodle resources and activities.
      • Develop an online course to explain how Assistive Technologies can be used with Moodle (e.g. regions for JAWS, browser plugins to show a reading ruler, change fonts to OpenDyslexi font, improve colour contrast).
    5. Improved interfaces by proposing enhancements to Moodle HQ and iParadigms (who provide Turnitin).
      • Adequately signpost links showing (new window, document, external/internal etc) automatically.
      • Enable users to personalise their experience by allowing them to choose their own course format, set blocks to particular colours.
      • Improve assessment interfaces, such as the Moodle Assignment rubric functionality and display.
      • Flag new items on the Moodle course page (allow this to be enabled/disabled in user preferences).
      • Improve the Moodle calendar – e.g. size, reliance on colour, clicking month to access full screen.
      • Improve the discussion forums – e.g. showing the entire thread when replying, the accessibility of the email alerts it sends.
      • Fix Moodle heading tags.

    The UCL Digital Education team, staff in Disability Support teams and staff from IT for IoE  are slowly working through each of these five strands to make improvements to virtual learning experiences at UCL for those with disabilities. Many of these improvements will also benefit other Moodle users, since accessibility cannot be considered in isolation from usability, so this means an enhanced user experience for everyone!

    Comparing Moodle Assignment and Turnitin for assessment criteria and feedback

    By Mira Vogel, on 8 November 2016

    Elodie Douarin (Lecturer in Economics, UCL School of Slavonic and Eastern European Studies) and I have been comparing how assessment criteria can be presented to engage a large cohort of students with feedback in Moodle Assignment and Turnitin Assignment (report now available). We took a mixed methods approach using questionnaire, focus group and student screencasts as they accessed their feedback and responded to our question prompts. Here are some our key findings.

    Spoiler – we didn’t get a clear steer over which technology is (currently) better – they have different advantages. Students said Moodle seemed “better-made” (which I take to relate to theming issues rather than software architecture ones) while the tutor appreciated the expanded range of feedback available in Moodle 3.1.

    Assessment criteria

    • Students need an opportunity to discuss, and ideally practice with, the criteria in advance, so that they and the assessors can reach a shared view of the standards by which their work will be assessed.
    • Students need to know that criteria exist and be supported to use them. Moodle Assignment is good for making rubrics salient, whereas Turnitin requires students to know to click an icon.
    • Students need support to benchmark their own work to the criteria. Moodle or Turnitin rubrics allow assessors to indicate which levels students have achieved. Moreover, Moodle allows a summary comment for each criterion.
    • Since students doubt that assessors refer to the criteria during marking, it is important to make the educational case for criteria (i.e. beyond grading) as a way of reaching a shared understanding about standards, for giving and receiving feedback, and for self/peer assessment.

    Feedback

    • The feedback comments most valued by students explain the issue, make links with the assessment criteria, and include advice about what students should do next.
    • Giving feedback digitally is legible and easily accessible from any web connected device.
    • Every mode of feedback should be conspicuously communicated to students and suggestions on how to cross-reference these different modes should be provided. Some thoughts should be given to ways to facilitate access to and interpretation of all the elements of feedback provided.
    • Students need to know that digital feedback exists and how to access it. A slideshow of screenshots would allow tutors to hide and unhide slides depending on which feedback aspects they are using.

    Effort

    • The more feedback is dispersed between different modes, the more effortful it is for students to relate it to their own work and thinking. Where more than one mode is used, there is a need to distinguish between the purpose and content of each kind of feedback, signpost their relationships, and communicate this to students. Turnitin offers some support for cross referencing between bubble comments and criteria.
    • It would be possible to ask students to indicate on their work which mode (out of a choice of possibilities) they would like assessors to use.
    • The submission of formative assessment produced with minimal effort may impose a disproportionate burden on markers, who are likely to be commenting on mistakes that students could have corrected easily by themselves. Shorter formative assessment, group works, clearer statements of the benefits of submitting formative work may all help limiting the incidence of low-effort submissions.
    • If individual summary comments have a lot in common, consider releasing them as general feedback for the cohort, spending the saved time on more student-specific comments instead. However, this needs to be signposted clearly to help students cross-reference with their individual feedback.
    • As a group, teaching teams can organise a hands-on session with Digital Education to explore Moodle Assignment and Turnitin from the perspectives of students, markers and administrators. This exposure will help immeasurably with designing efficient, considerate processes and workflows.
    • The kind of ‘community work’ referred to by Bloxham and colleagues (2015) would be an opportunity to reach shared understandings of the roles of students and markers with respect to criteria and feedback, which would in turn help to build confidence in the assessment process.

     

    Bloxham, S., den-Outer, B., Hudson, J., Price, M., 2015. Let’s stop the pretence of consistent marking: exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 1–16. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1024607

     

    What IT Directors care about

    By Fiona Strawbridge, on 30 October 2016

    IMG_7849I heard about the Campus Computing survey for the first time at Educause 2016 – but this survey has been around since 1990 – before, I suspect, the term e-learning had even been coined. This is a survey of CIOs’ (IT Directors’) perspectives on e-learning, amongst other things and I was intrigued to find out what they thought, so went to hear about it from Casey (Kenneth) Green, the Founding Director of CampusComputing.net. I haven’t managed to find the actual survey report, so what follows is a bit patchy, but in essence, CIOs’ have ‘great faith in the benefits of e-learning’, but Learning Analytics keeps them up at night.

    Their top five priorities are:

    1. hiring and retaining skilled staff;
    2. assisting academics with e-learning;
    3. the network and data security;
    4. providing adequate user support;
    5. leveraging IT resources to support student success.

    The trouble with learning analytics:

    CIOs are consistently bothered about their institutions’ ability to deliver learning analytics capabilities and cited concerns with:

    • the infrastructure to deliver them;
    • effectiveness of investment to date;
    • sense of satisfaction with what has been delivered

    There was a general sense that their ‘reach exceeded their grasp’ in this area.

    What we do vs what we buy:

    An interesting observation was that CIOs’ rating of services and facilities that are bought in or outsourced was higher than of those that are developed in house. ‘What we buy works better than what we do’.  Which is perhaps unsurprising, but rather depressing. The service that CIOs were happiest about was wifi!

    If I manage to get a link to the report or presentation I will link to it here.

    What (American) Students Want

    By Fiona Strawbridge, on 30 October 2016

    Infographic of ECAR Survey - https://library.educause.edu/resources/2016/6/~/media/files/library/2016/10/eig1605.pdf

    ECAR infographic

    One motivation for enduring the jet lag and culture shock of a long haul conference is the chance to find out what the big issues are in a different HE environment; Educause is a very good opportunity to do that as it reports on a number of surveys in the world’s largest higher education sector.

    So, at this year’s Educause in LA, I went to sessions reporting the results of two very different surveys. One – the ECAR (Educause Center for Analysis & Research) Student Survey – asks students themselves about their attitudes to, experiences of and preferences for using technology in HE – a bit like a tech-focused NSS. The second – CampusComputing.net – surveys IT Directors’ views on e-learning; this seemed, to me, to be a rather odd perspective (why ask CIOs and not heads of e-learning who are closer to the area?).  This post looks at the ECAR student view. To find out what the directors want I’ve written a more sketchy post…

    The student survey was completed by a staggering 71,641 students from 183 institutions in 37 states and from 12 countries. The survey is a good benchmarking tool for participating institutions – they are able to compare their results against those from other institutions. Christopher Brookes and Jeffrey Pomerania from Educause presented a whistle-stop tour of the main findings. The full report is at the survey hub, and the infographic shown on the right is a nice summary. There weren’t too many surprises; in a nutshell, students own a lot of devices, and they view them as very important for their learning.

    Their devices

    In terms of devices, 93% own laptops and a further 3% plan to purchase one, and almost all say they are very or extremely important for their studies. 96 % own smartphones. Tablet ownership is much lower at 57%, and students rated them as less important to their studies than their smartphones. 61% of students have two or three devices, and 33% own four or more. Challenging for wifi, as we know…

    Techiness

    ECAR looked at techiness (sic) as measured by students’

    1. disposition to technology (sceptic vs cheerleader, technophobe vs technophile etc);
    2. their attitude (distraction vs enhancement, discontented vs contented etc) and
    3. their actual usage of technology (peripheral vs central, never vs alway connected etc).

    Since 2014 all three measures have increased – so students are more techie now, and men are more techie than women. As I said, no great surprises.

    Students’ experiences of technology

    We were told that there was good news about students’ experiences of technology – 80% rated their overall technology experience as good or excellent. Now, it strikes me that if our scores for question 17 in the National Student Survey which asks about technology had been this low (we score 87%) we’d be very seriously concerned – but of course the questions are different so a direct comparison isn’t valid. But a good question is what is actually meant by “students’ experience of technology”. We were told that the main determinants were wifi in halls of residence and on campus, ease of login, having skilled academics, students’ own attitudes to technology, and it helped if technology used in class was perceived as relevant to their career.

    Technology in teaching

    Around 69% of students said that their teachers had adequate technical skills. More than half reported that technology was being used to share materials (61%) and collaborate (57%). There was less use which encouraged critical thinking (49%) and only a 34% of students said they were encouraged to use their own technology in the classroom.

    82% of students reported preferring a blended learning environment over a fully online or fully offline one. Since 2013, the percentage of students who don’t want any online education has halved from around 22% to 11%. The number wanting a fully online experience has dropped slightly, but the number wanting a ‘nearly fully online’ experience has increased; the number wanted a more traditionally blended approach is stable at around 60%. Those who have previous experience of fully online courses are more likely to want a more fully online experience, and women were more likely than men to want to learn online – it was suggested due to a reluctance to speak up in a face-to-face environment.

    Students found technology helped them with engagement with academics, with one another, and with content. There were some other interesting demographic effects. Women, first generation students, and non-white students were more likely to say that technology had a positive impact on the efficacy of their learning – it empowered them; it was helpful for communication, for helping them with basic terminology, and for getting swift feedback from others. It was found to enrich the learning experience in many ways.

    And finally, students want more:

    • Lecture capture – this mirrors experience at UCL
    • Free, supplemental online content
    • Search tools to find references – this has digital literacy implications as tools exist so perhaps students are unaware.

    But, I guess, not more engaging or challenging online learning experiences. Ah well…

    Introducing the new E-Learning Baseline

    By Jessica Gramp, on 7 June 2016

    UCL E-Learning Baseline 2016The UCL E-Learning Baseline is now available as a printable colour booklet. This can be downloaded from the UCL E-Learning Baseline wiki page: http://bit.ly/UCLELearningBaseline

    The 2016 version is a product of merging the UCL Moodle Baseline with the Student Minimum Entitlement to On-Line Support from the Institute of Education.

    The Digital Education Advisory team will be distributing printed copies to E-Learning Champions and Teaching Administrators for use in departments.

    Please could you also distribute this to your own networks to help us communicate the new guidelines to all staff.

    Support is available to help staff apply this to their Moodle course templates via digi-ed@ucl.ac.uk.

    We are also working on a number of ideas to help people understand the baseline (via a myth busting quiz) and a way for people to show their courses are Baseline (or Baseline+) compliant by way with a colleague endorsed badge.

    See ‘What’s new?’, to quickly see what has changed since the last 2013 Baseline.

     

    Reflections before UCL’s first Mooc

    By Matt Jenner, on 26 February 2016

    Why We Post: Anthropology of Social Media

    Why We Post: Anthropology of Social Media

    UCL’s first Mooc – Why We Post: The Anthropology of Social Media launches on Monday on FutureLearn. It’s not actually our first Mooc – it’s not even one Mooc, it’s 9! Eight other versions are simultaneously launching on UCLeXtend in the following languages: Chinese, English, Italian, Hindi, Portuguese, Spanish, Tamil and Turkish. If that’s not enough  we seem to have quite a few under the banner of UCL:

    (quite a few of these deserve title of ‘first’ – but who’s counting…)

    Extended Learning Landscape - UCL 2015

    Extended Learning Landscape – UCL 2015

    UCL is quite unique for some of these – we have multiple platforms which form a part of our Extended Learning Landscape. This maps out areas of activity such as CPD, short courses, Moocs, Public Engagement, Summer Schools (and many more) and tries to understand how we can utilise digital education / e-learning with these (and what happens when we do).

     

    Justification for Moocs

    We’ve not launched our first Mooc (apparently) but we also need to develop a mid term plan too – so we can do more. Can we justify the ones we’ve done so far? Well a strong evaluation will certainly help but we also need an answer to the most pertinent pending question:

    How much did all this cost and was it worth it? 

    It’s a really good question, one we started asking a while ago, and still the answer feels no better than educated guesswork. Internally we’re working on merging a Costing and Pricing tool (not published, sorry) and the IoE / UCL Knowledge Lab Course Resource Appraisal Modeller (CRAM) tool. The goal is to have a tool which takes the design of a Mooc and outputs a realistic cost. It’s pretty close already – but we need to feed in some localisations from our internal Costing and Pricing tool such as Estates cost, staff wages, Full Economic Costings, digital infrastructure, support etc. The real cost of all this is important. But the value? Well…

    Evaluation

    We’ve had a lot of ideas and thoughts about evaluation; what is the value of running Moocs for the university? It feels right to mention public engagement, the spirit of giving back and developing really good resources that people can enjoy. There’s the golden carrot being dangled of student recruitment but I can’t see that balancing any Profit/Loss sheets. I do not think it’s about pedagogical innovation, let’s get real here: most Moocs are still a bulk of organised expert videos and text. I don’t think this does a disservice to our Moocs, or those of others, I’d wager that people really like organised expert videos and text (YouTube and Wikipedia being stable Top 10 Global Websites hints at this). But there are other reasons – building Moocs is an new way to engage a lot of people with your topic of interest. Dilution of the common corpus of subjects is a good thing; they are open to anyone who can access them. The next logical step is subjects of fascination, niche, specialist, bespoke – all apply to the future of Moocs.

    For evaluation, some obvious things to measure are:

    • Time from people spend on developing the Mooc – we’ve got a breakdown document which tries to list each part of making / running a Mooc so we can estimate time spent.
    • Money spent on media production – this one tends to be easy
    • Registration, survey, quiz, platform usage and associated learner data
    • Feedback from course teams on their experience
    • Outcomes from running a Mooc (book chapters, conference talks, awards won, research instigated)
    • Teaching and learning augmentation (i.e. using the Mooc in a course/module/programme)
    • Developing digital learning objects which can be shared / re-used
    • Student recruitment from the Mooc
    • Pathways to impact – for research-informed Moocs (and we’re working on refining what this means)
    • How much we enjoyed the process – this does matter!

    Developing a Mooc – lessons learned

    Communication

    Designing a course for FutureLearn involves a lot of communication; both internally and to external Partners, mostly our partner manager at FutureLearn but there are others too. This is mostly a serious number of emails – 1503 (so far) to be exact. How? If I knew I’d be rich or loaded with oodles of time. It’s another new years resolution: Stop: Think: Do you really need to send / read / keep that email? Likely not! I tried to get us on Trello early, as to avoid this but I didn’t do so well and as the number of people involved grew adding all these people to a humungous Trello board just seemed, well, unlikely. Email; I shall understand you one day, but for now, I surrender.

    Making videos

    From a bystander’s viewpoint I think the course teams all enjoyed making their videos (see final evaluation point). The Why We Post team had years to make their videos in-situ from their research across the world. This is a great opportunity to capture real people in the own context; I don’t think video gets much better than this. They had permission from the outset to use the video for educational purposes (good call) and wove them right into the fabric of the course – and you can tell. Making Babies in the 21st Century has captured some of the best minds in the field of reproduction; Dan Reisel (lead educator) knows the people he wants, he’s well connected and has captured and collated experts in the field – a unique and challenging achievement. Tim Shakespeare, The Many Faces of Dementia, was keener to capture three core groups for his course: people with Dementia, their carers / family and the experts who are working to improve the lives for people with Dementia. This triangle of people makes it a rounded experience for any learner, you’ll connect with at least one of these groups. Genius.

    Also:

    • Audio matters the most – bad audio = not watching
    • Explain and show concepts – use the visual element of video to show what you mean, not a chin waggling around
    • Keep it short – it’s not an attention span issue, it’s an ideal course structuring exercise.
    • Show your face – people still want to see who’s talking at some point
    • Do not record what can be read – it’s slower to listen than it is to read, if your video cam be replaced with an article, you may want to.
    • Captions and transcripts are important – do as many as you can. Bonus: videos can then be translated.

    Using third party works

    Remains as tricky as it ever has been. Moocs are murky (commercial? educational? for-profit?) but you’ll need to ask permission for every single third-party piece of work you want to use. Best advice: try not to or be prepared to have no response! Images are the worst, it’s a challenge to find lots of great images that you’re allowed to use, and a course without images isn’t very visually compelling. Set aside some time for this.

    Designing social courses that can also be skim-read

    FutureLearn, in particular, is a socially-oriented learning platform – you’ll need to design a course around peer-to-peer discussion. Some is breaking thresholds – you’re trying to teach them something important, enabling rich discussion will help. You’re also trying to keep them engaged – so you can’t ask for a deep, thoughtful, intervention every 2 minutes. Find the balance between asking important questions – raising provocative points – and enjoying the fruits of the discussion with the reality of ‘respond if you want’ type discussion prompts.

    Connect course teams together

    While they might not hold one another’s hair when things get rough – the course teams will benefit from sharing their experiences with one another. We’ve held monthly meetings since the beginning, encouraging each team to attend and share their updates, challenges, show content, see examples from other courses and generally make it a more social experience. Some did share their dropboxes with one another – which I hadn’t expected but am enjoying the level of transparency. I am guilty of thinking at scale at the moment, so while I was guiding and pseudo ‘project-managing’ the courses, I was keen to promote independence and agency within the course teams. It’s their course, they’ll be the ones working into the night on it, I can’t have them relying on me and my dreaded inbox. The outcome is they build their own ideas and shape them in their own style; maybe we’re lucky but this is important. We do intervene at critical stages, recommending approaches and methods as appropriate.

    Plan, design and then build

    Few online learning environments make good drafting tools. We encouraged a three-stage development process:

    1. Proposals, expanded into Excel-based documents. Outlines each week, the headline for each step/component and critical elements like discussion starters.
    2. Design in documents – Word/Google Docs (whatever) – expand each week; what’s in each step. Great for editorial and refinement.
    3. Build in the platform.

    The reason for this is the outlines are usually quick to fix when there’s a glaring structural omission or error. The document-based design then means content can be written, refined and steps planned out in a loose, familiar tool. Finally the platform needs to be played with, understood and then the documents translated into real courses. It’s not a solid process and some courses had an ABC (Arena Blended Connected) Curriculum Design stage, just to be sure a storyboard of the course made sense.

    Overall

    • It’s hard work – for the course teams – you can just see they’ll underestimate the amount of time needed.
    • The value shows once you go live and people start registering, sharing early comments on the Week 0 discussion areas.
    • These courses look good and work well as examples for others, Mooc or credit-bearing blended/online courses
    • Courses don’t need to be big – 1/2 hours a week, 2-4 weeks is enough. I’d like to see more smaller Moocs
    • Integrating your Moocs into taught programmes, modules, CPD courses makes a lot of sense

    As a final observation before we go live with the first course: Why We Post: The Anthropology of Social Media, on Monday there was one thing that caught my eye early:

    Every course team leader for our Moocs is primarily a researcher and their Moocs are produced, largely, from their research activity. UCL is research intensive, so this isn’t too crazy, but we’re also running an institutional initiative the Connected Curriculum which is designed to fully integrate research and teaching. The Digital Education team is keen to see how we build e-learning into research from the outset. This leads us to a new project in UCL entitled: Pathways to Impact: Research Outputs as Digital Education (ROADE) where we’re exploring research dissemination and e-learning objects and courses origins and value. More soon on that one – but our Mooc activity has really initiated this activity.

    Coming soon – I hope – Reflections after UCL’s first Mooc 🙂