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 our elearning newsletters.

  • Subscribe to this blog

  • Meta

  • Tags

  • A A A

    Archive for the 'ELDG: E-Learning Development Grants' Category

    Moodle in the classroom

    By Domi C Sinclair, on 4 November 2016

    Words by Rebecca Yerworth:

    We all know that it is good to make lectures interactive and that there are many tools out there to help us. Various departments have invested in hardware and software to enable students to ‘vote’ or submit other responses during lectures… but how many of us use these tools? I am technically savvy and keen to apply best practice in my teaching, yet I cannot face using them! I want to, I love the concept, but have been put off by the need to install software and setup session specific activations, quite apart from the need to train myself and the students in how to use the systems. There had to be a better way I thought, how about Moodle? I’m used to putting lecture notes on it, and students are used to navigating to the right course page to find them … are there any Moodle activates which could be used within a lecture?

    So I applied for an E-learning development grant, which funded a student (Bindia) to work with me on exploring this.

    We found that “Hot Question” was the simplest and most versatile tool, but also successfully tried out “Choice” and quiz questions where you drag and drop labels on to an image (this worked really well the second time … once we had shrunk the image and shortened the labels so that they fitted on to smartphone screens!).

    I love using the ‘hot question’ activity as a virtual flip chart, and it came into its own during the revision sessions.  I displayed an exam style question on the board, and instructed students to answer part 1 via Moodle. A couple of minutes later there was a bunch of answers simultaneously displayed on the board and the students devices. “Between them these two would get full marks” I commented before going on to describe the strengths and weaknesses of the answers.  One mouse click created a new page in the activity and we moved on to another part of the question, with the previous page save for students to review later.  Students reported how helpful they found this session – and the saved answers that they could look back on later.

    Another activity which received positive feedback from the students was when we used ‘choice’ in conjunction with an on-line multi-choice medical ethics activity. The class worked through the case study together, anonymously entering their guess/answer to each question in Moodle. I then selected the most popular option on the website… “oups, most of us would have acted outside of General Medical Council Guidelines… well done the 10% of you that selected option c.” Having to enter their own choice forced the students to think through these tricky issues, and seeing what the rest of the class choose helped provide reassurance and an understanding of what other students thought.

    We made some user guides, which will be available via the UCL-Moodle help wiki, in the hope that others will be inspired to try out Moodle-In-lectures. If you do, it would be interesting to hear how you got on.

    I will defiantly be using more Moodle in lectures this year. As well as setting up specific activates, I will make sure I have a generically labelled ‘Hot questions’ and ‘Choice’ on every page that I can use and reuse for impromptu activities – like when a student ask a good question and you want to find out what the rest of the class think before providing the answer.

    PeerWise – Report on Outcomes of e-Learning Development Grant

    By Kevin Tang, on 8 June 2013

    PeerWise – Report on Outcomes of e-Learning Development Grant#

    by Sam Green and Kevin Tang

    Department of Linguistics, UCL

    PeerWise_Logo

    Introduction
    In February 2012, we obtained Teaching Innovation Grant funding to pilot the use of PeerWise on one module and would like to extend and embed its use. PeerWise is an online repository of multiple-choice questions that are created, answered, rated and discussed by students. PeerWise involves students in the formative assessment and feedback process and enables them to develop a number of key skills which will enhance the employability of our students, including negotiating meaning with others, cross-cultural communication, and analytical and evaluation skills as they engage with the work of their peers.

    Overall aims and objectives

    Since we had excellent feedback on our pilot course, we aimed to extend the use of PeerWise to another three large and diverse modules for 2012/13. In doing so we would investigate any accessibility issues as well as the possibility of integrating PeerWise with software used by our students, e.g. software to represent syntactic structures. The PGTAs would adapt the material developed in 2011/12 to provide guidelines and training and further support to PGTAs and academics staff running modules using PeerWise, and run introductory sessions for students. In addition, they would support the PeerWise assessment process, which in turn would contribute to the module marks. The PGTAs would also be involved in disseminating the project outcome and sharing good practice.

    Methodology – Explanation of what was done and why

    Introductory session with PGTAs:

    A session was held prior to the start of term with PGTAs teaching on modules utilising PeerWise, run by the experienced PGTAs. This delivered information to PGTAs on the structure and technical aspects of the system, the implementation of the system in their module, and importantly marks and grading. This also highlighted the importance of team-work and explained the necessity of participation from both the teaching team and students. Materials were also provided in an introductory pack to new PGTAs to quickly adapt the system for their respective modules (see Dissemination below).

    Introductory session with students:

    Students taking modules with a PeerWise component were required to attend a two-hour training and practice workshop, run by the PGTAs teaching on their module. After being given log-in instructions, students participated in the test environment set up by the PGTAs. These test environments contained a range of sample questions (written by the PGTAs) relating to their modules. This demonstrated to the students the quality of questions and level of difficulty required, as well as the available use of media. More generally, students were given instructions on how to provide useful feedback, and how to create effective and educational questions, as well as being told about the requirements of their module.

    Our PGTA - Thanasis Soultatis giving an introductory session to PeerWise for students

    Our PGTA – Thanasis Soultatis giving an introductory session to PeerWise for students

    Our PGTA - Kevin Tang giving an introductory session to PeerWise for students

    Our PGTA – Kevin Tang giving an introductory session to PeerWise for students

     

    Dissemination (See below)

    Course integration

    In its second academic year, PeerWise was integrated with modules with the following requirements:

    • compulsory for both BA and MA students (previously only BA)
    • students were informed that they would work in teams to create questions
    • work individually to answer questions
    • workload divided into six weekly deadlines
    • questions to be based on that week’s material

    In the pilot implementation of PeerWise, BA but not MA students were required to participate. BA students showed more participation than MA students, but the latter nevertheless still showed engagement with the system. Therefore, it was decided to make PeerWise a compulsory element of the module to maximise the efficacy of peer-learning.

    Following meetings with CALT member Dr. Rosalind Duhs, it was decided that students should work in ‘mixed ability’ groups, due to the difficult nature of creating questions. However, to effectively monitor individual performance, questions were required to be answered individually. Deadlines ensured that students engaged with that week’s material throughout the course; this simultaneously spread out the workload and resulted in an effective revision tool (see below for use of PeerWise for revision by MA students).

    Technical improvement

    PeerWise allows images to be hosted, but this is restricted by the size of the image. Embedding of YouTube clips is an option, but there is no capability to embed/upload sound or video files directly to PeerWise. To circumvent this, a conversation with Domi Sinclair (ELE services) revealed that we could use an existing UCL system to host and link media not supported by PeerWise. All UCL students have a ‘MyPortfolio’ account, and this is customisable to allow external links etc. which can be anonymised (for MCQ usage). Instructions were provided to PGTAs to pass on to students.

    Project outcomes – Description and examples of what was achieved or produced

    To evaluate the outcomes of the project, we used the data clearly provided by PeerWise for analyses of students’ performance.

    Active Engagement

    Using the PeerWise administration tools, it was possible to observe student participation over time. This revealed that students met question creation deadlines as required, but not always in a rushed manner; they often worked throughout the week to complete the weekly task. In addition, questions were answered throughout the week, revealing that students didn’t appear to see the task purely as a chore. Further to this, most students answered more than the required number of questions, again showing their willing engagement. The final point on deadlines was that the MA students (who had an exam as the final part of the module assessment) used PeerWise as a revision tool entirely by their own choices. Because they had created regular questions throughout the course of the module, they had created a repository of revision topics with questions, answers, and explanations

    Active Engagement

    Active Engagement

    Correlations with module performance

    PeerWise provided a set of PeerWise scores which is composed of individual scores for question writing, answering questions and rating existing questions. To increase the total score, one needs to achieve good scores for each component.

    The students should:

    • write relevant, high-quality questions with well thought out alternatives and clear explanations
    • answer questions thoughtfully
    • rate questions fairly and leave constructive feedback
    • use PeerWise early as the score increases over time based on the contribution history

    Correlations  between the PeerWise scores and the module scores were performed to test the effectiveness of PeerWise on student’s learning. A nested model comparison was performed to test the effectiveness of the PeerWise grouping in prediction of the students’ performance. The performance in Term 1 differ somewhat between the BA students and MA students, but not in Term 2 after manipulations with the PeerWise grouping with the BAs.

    Term 1:

    The BA students showed no correlation at all, while the MAs showed a strong correlation (r = 0.49, p < 0.001***)

    MA Students - Term 1 - Correlation between PeerWise Scores and Exam Scores

    MA Students – Term 1 – Correlation between PeerWise Scores and Exam Scores

    In light of this finding, we attempted to identify the reasons behind this divergence in correlation. Having consulted with the TAs who allocated the PeerWise groups (three students per group), it was found that the grouping with the BAs was done randomly, rather than by mixed-ability, while the grouping with the MAs was done by mixed-ability. We, therefore, hypothesized that mixed-ability grouping is essential to the successful use of the system. To test this hypothesis, we asked the TA for the BAs to regroup the PeerWise group based on mixed-ability, this TA did not have any knowledge of the students’ Peerwise scores in Term 1, while the PeerWise grouping for the MAs largely remained the same.

    Term 2:

    The assignment in Term 2 were based on three assignments spread out over the term. The final PeerWise score (taken at the end of the Term 2) was tested for correlation with each of the three assignments – Assignment 1, 2 and 3.

    Three correlation analyses were performed between the PeerWise score with each of the three assignments.

    With the BAs, the PeerWise score correlated with all three assignments with increasing levels of statistical significance – Assignment 1 ( r = 0.44, p = 0.0069**), Assignment 2 ( r = 0.47, p = .0.0040*) and Assignment 3 ( r = 0.47, p = .0.0035**).

    With the MAs, the findings were similar, with the difference that Assignment 1 was insignificant with a borderline p-value of 0.0513 – Assignment 1 ( r = 0.28, p = 0.0513), Assignment 2 ( r = 0.46, p = 0.0026**) and Assignment 3 ( r = 0.33, p = 0.0251**).

    The effect of PeerWise grouping

    A further analysis was performed to test if the PeerWise grouping has an effect on their assignment performance. We did this by doing a nested-model comparison with PeerWise score and PeerWise Group as predictors and the mean assignment scores as the predictee. The lm function in R statistical package was used to build two models, the superset model which has both PeerWise score and PeerWise Group as the predictors, and the subset model which has only the PeerWise score as the predictor. An ANOVA was used to compare the two models, and it was found that while both PeerWise scores and PeerWise grouping were significant predictors in the superset model, PeerWise grouping made a significant improvement in prediction with p < 0.05 * (See the table below for the nested-model output)

    Analysis of Variance Table
    
    Model 1: Assignment_Mean ~ PW_score + group
    Model 2: Assignment_Mean ~ PW_score
      Res.Df    RSS Df Sum of Sq      F  Pr(>F)  
    1     28 2102.1                              
    2     29 2460.3 -1   -358.21 4.7713 0.03747 *
    ---
    Signif. codes:  0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1

    Conclusion for the project outcomes

    The strong correlation found with the BA group in Term 2 (but not in Term 1) is likely to be due to the introduction of mixed-ability grouping. The group effect suggests that the students performed at a similar level as a group, this therefore implies group learning. This effect was only found with the BAs but not with the MAs, this difference could be attributed to the quality of the mixed-ability grouping, since the BAs (re)grouping was based  on Term 1 performance, while the MA grouping was based on the impression on the students that the TA had in the first two weeks of Term 1. With the BAs and MAs, there’s a small increase of correlation and significance level over the term, this might suggest that the increasing use of the system improves their assignment grades over the term.

    Together these findings suggest that mixed-ability grouping is key to peer learning.

    Evaluation/reflection:

    A questionnaire was completed by the students about their experience with our implementation of PeerWise. The feedback was on the whole positive with a majority of students agreeing that

    1. Developing original questions on course topics improved their understanding of those topics
    2. Answering questions written by other students improved their understanding of those topics.
    3. Their groups worked well together

    These highlighted the key concept of PeerWise – Peer Learning

    feedback_understandingfeedback_writtenfeedback_group

    How did the project enhance student learning?

    Our objective statistical analyses together with the subjective feedback from the students themselves strongly indicated that the project enhanced student learning.

    How did the outcomes compare with the original aims?

    Enquiries to the PeerWise development team revealed that there are unfortunately no options for accessibility for users with e.g. poor sight. General suggestions were made to these students on ways to increase the screen viewing size, but this remains an issue, albeit mostly with the PeerWise development team.

    PGTAs and also course organisers attended the training provided, and found it beneficial enough to utilise PeerWise as a component on their module. The experienced PGTAs remained available for assistance, although the user guide proved to answer most questions for new users. The above graphs and tables display some of the successes regarding students’ progress through their modules using PeerWise.

    One highly useful and partly unexpected beneficial outcome was the subsequent creation of a revision system for students taking exams at the end of the module, made out of the questions, answers, and explanations they submitted as part of their PeerWise participation. As explained above, this repository of information was used by students in their preparation. Further, this collection of questions and answers aimed at (indeed, made by) student-level comprehension provides a large ‘databank’ of questions and answers, along with explanations, within topics for staff to utilise in subsequent years. Difficulties in question creation and answering, and common mistakes in understanding being made by students can also be spotted and dealt with along the course of the module.

    As mentioned below, ‘dissemination’ of experiences and introductory information on using PeerWise was successful and well-received.

    How has the project developed your awareness, understanding, knowledge, or expertise in e-learning?

    One important experience is the recognition that peer learning – using e-learning – can be a highly effective method of learning for students, even with low amounts of any regular and direct contact from PGTAs to students regarding their participation. The statistics above reveal this nicely.

    However, although we deliberately took a ‘hands-off’ approach, we found it necessary to be considerate of the aims of the modules, understand the capabilities of PeerWise and it’s potential for integration with the module, and importantly to plan in detail the whole module’s use of PeerWise from the beginning. Initiating this type of e-learning system required this detailed investigation and planning in order for students to understand the requirements and the relationship of the system to their module. Without explicit prior planning, with teams working in groups and remotely from PGTAs and staff (at least, with regards their PeerWise interaction), any serious issues with the system and its use may not have been spotted and/or may have been difficult to counteract. Because of the consideration however, serious problems didn’t arise in the system’s use.

    As mentioned, the nature of the work (remotely from staff and in groups) meant that students might not readily inform us of issues they may have been having, so any small comment was dealt with immediately. One issue that arose was group members’ cooperation; this required swift and definitive action, which was then communicated to all relevant parties. In particular, any misunderstandings with the requirements were dealt with quickly, with e-mails sent out to all students, even if only one individual or group expressed concern.

    Dissemination- How will the project outputs of results be disseminated to the department, College or externally?  Are there other departments which would find value in the project outputs or results?

    During the implementation of PeerWise under the e-Learning Development Grant, a Moodle site for staff and PGTAs was created with the help of Stefanie Anyadi, Teaching and Learning Team Manager at PALS. This hosts presentations by other universities using PeerWise; a detailed report on the implementation at UCL (in the Department of Linguistics); a user guide for staff, PGTAs, and students; and a ‘package’ for easy setting up of PeerWise for any module. To disseminate and publicise this information, a talk was given by Kevin Tang and Sam Green (the original PGTAs working with PeerWise) introducing the system to to staff within the Division of Psychology and Language Sciences. This in turn was video recorded as a ‘lecturecast’, and is also available on the Moodle page. Subsequently, as part of CALT’s “Summits and Horizons” lunchtime talks, thanks to Dr Nick Grindle, an invited updated talk was provided to those interested in teaching with e-learning, with a focus on peer-feedback, which was also video recorded.

    The dissemination materials can be found here:

    Scalability and sustainability – How will the project continue after the ELDG funding has
    discontinued? Might it be expanded to other areas of UCL?

    The division-wide presentation mentioned above advertised the use and success of PeerWise to several interested parties, as did the CALT lunchtime talk. As the experienced PGTAs have written their experiences in detail, have created a comprehensive user-guide, included presentations for students and new administrators of PeerWise, and made this readily-available for UCL staff and PGTAs, the system can capably be taken up by any other department. Further, within the Department of Linguistics there are several ‘second-generation’ PGTAs who have learned the details of, and used, PeerWise for their modules. These PGTAs will in turn pass on use of the system to the subsequent year, should PeerWise be used again; they will also be available to assist any new users of the system. In sum, given the detailed information available, and current use of the system by the Department of Linguistics, as well as the keen use by staff in the department (especially given the positive results of its uptake), it seems highly likely that PeerWise will continue to be used by several modules, and will likely be taken up by others.

    Acknowledgements

     

    A Virtual Learning Environment to Facilitate Interdisciplinary Learning

    By Richard Day, on 31 July 2012

     Report on Outcomes of E-Learning Development Grant

    Overall aims and objectives

    The ‘Virtual Learning Environment’ (VLE) project aimed to develop new online tools to facilitate interdisciplinary learning at UCL. The project was particularly aimed at students registered on multidisciplinary Masters courses, such as the MSc Biomaterials & Tissue Engineering, run by the Department of Mechanical Engineering. The objectives of the project were guided by the pedagogical principles that knowledge acquisition and learning are facilitated by interaction and collaboration with peers. To achieve this, the Virtual Learning Environment needed to offer a way of enhancing student interaction whilst providing an opportunity for peer-to-peer learning that offered unique motivational and cognitive benefits, whilst also enabling students from different background disciplines to grasp basic concepts.

    Methodology – Explanation of what was done and why

    Time constraints on a Masters degree course meant it was important to focus the content of the VLE on the fundamental principles necessary for students to grasp key concepts relevant to the course. A VLE was therefore devised to provide online laboratory tutorials (Virtual Laboratory) and an interdisciplinary learning forum (Virtual Journal Club).

    (1) Virtual Laboratory: The Virtual Laboratory was based in Moodle and consisted of a portfolio of tutorials introduced throughout the course that were designed to prime the students (primarily from an engineering background) with the working practises of a Life Sciences laboratory. This involved producing learning material that could be loaded into iSpring presentations, which were subsequently converted into Flash format for uploading onto Moodle. Topics covered included aseptic tissue culture techniques, micropipetting, centrifugation, cell counting and enzyme linked immunosorbent assays. The latter two topics included mini quizzes and data analysis tasks. These materials were developed with the assistance of student volunteers who were registered on the MSc course. Their work on the project involved capturing video clips of someone performing the techniques, scripting, dubbing and editing. The students were remunerated for the cost of their time working on the project.

    (2) Virtual Journal Club: The Virtual Journal Club (VJC) was established in My Portfolio. After an introductory session to the VJC to show its contents and workings, a different student was invited each week to review the strengths and weaknesses of a paper they had selected from the recent literature relevant to a topic covered in the course module. An online discussion was then opened up to the other members of the group who participated by uploading a brief posting onto the blog.

    Project outcomes – Description and examples of what was achieved or produced

    The VLE received positive feedback from students on the MSc Biomaterials & Tissue Engineering course. An Opinio survey was conducted to evaluate the students’ perception of the VLE. These data indicate students generally recognised the benefits of participating in the VLE, despite many of them not having previously used online or virtual learning environments. The VLE received positive feedback from students on the MSc Biomaterials & Tissue Engineering course. An Opinio survey was conducted to evaluate the students’ perception of the VLE. These data indicate students generally recognised the benefits of participating in the VLE, despite many of them not having previously used online or virtual learning environments.

    Opinio survey data from students on the MSc Biomaterials & Tissue Engineering course:

    Virtual Journal Club:

    Virtual Laboratory:


    From a course lecturer’s perspective, the VLE enabled me to cover more topics during the limited time available. This was particularly evident in the practical sessions where the students were more familiar with the concepts being introduced. Having already been introduced to some of the techniques with the online tutorials they became proficient with the techniques being used much more quickly than groups taught in previous years. An encouraging result from the survey was the students’ impression that the Virtual Journal Club helped them review literature more critically. This skill is an important component for their laboratory based research project and was something that was clearly lacking in previous years.

    Evaluation/reflection:

    How did the project enhance student learning?

    The project enhanced student learning by providing an opportunity for students to be ‘preconditioned’ for certain aspects of the course prior to classroom based activities. An example of this occurred with the viewing of a Virtual Laboratory movie clip explaining aseptic technique, which was followed by the practical session. By enabling the students to be familiar with the techniques that would be used during the laboratory practical session, time was saved allowing students additional time to reflect on what was being covered during the session. The feedback from the Opinio survey generally supported this observation.




    How did the outcomes compare with the original aims?

    The outcomes of the project were in line with the original aims of the project. A VLE has been created and this has been positively received by the students. The VLE has provided an additional tool for cross disciplinary learning. The students were more enthusiastic about the Virtual Laboratory compared with the Virtual Journal Club. After the first few students had volunteered for the Virtual Journal Club, subsequent volunteers were less forthcoming. To encourage participation a different approach will be adopted for the coming academic year, whereby the participation contributes to 5-10% of the coursework module mark.

    How did the project benefit the student workers?

    The student workers received training in the production of online teaching aids. They also gained experience in scripting, producing and editing video clips. They also benefitted from financial remuneration on completion of their work.

    How has the project developed your awareness, understanding, knowledge, or expertise in elearning?

    The project has developed my awareness of the benefits and drawbacks of e-learning. However, the former are greater than the latter and I plan to continue developing this side of the curriculum. The planned peer-to-peer learning that the project aimed for will only be fully achieved if all the students are fully engaged. Therefore participation rates of the Virtual Journal Club will be monitored and reminders sent for each individual’s contribution.

    Scalability and sustainability – How will the project continue after the ELDG funding has
    discontinued? Might it be expanded to other areas of UCL?

    Interest in the Virtual Laboratory and Virtual Journal Club has been expressed by other course coordinators at UCL and it is hoped that similar technology will be rolled-out to a wide range of interdisciplinary courses at UCL. The Opinio survey has revealed areas where the VLE can be enhanced in the future, as shown below.

    Dissemination- How will the project outputs of results be disseminated to the department, College or externally?  Are there other departments which would find value in the project outputs or results?

     

    Other members of the department are aware of the VLE and have expressed interest in developing similar strategies for other courses. Additional research questions and developmental ideas are going to be explored in the next academic year. It is hoped these data will lead to a journal publication to enable further dissemination outside of UCL.

    Guest post – Dr Jenny Bunn on DiSARM ELDG Report

    By Matt Jenner, on 29 June 2012

    From Dr Jenny Bunn

    In receipt of an E-Learning Development Grant, Jenny has created DiSARM: Digital Scenarios for Archives and Records Management. Her project aimed to develop a number of digital scenarios to enhance the e-learning opportunities for students on the Department of Information Studies’ (DIS) archives and records management programmes. Below is her report, as a guest blog post:

    This post sets out a question that has arisen as the result of work within the Department of Information Studies to incorporate more e-learning tools and techniques within its teaching. Last year the department was fortunate enough to win an e-learning development grant to undertake a project entitled Digital Scenarios for Archives and Records Management (DiSARM). As the name suggests the project was focussed around the department’s archives and records management programmes and involved the development of scenarios which would enhance both the digital content and context of these programmes. Content, because it is increasingly important for our students to be familiar with a wide range of processes and products employed to ensure the preservation of born digital records, and context, because it is equally important that they should be exposed to methods of teaching and (e-)learning that will enable them to gain confidence and experience of working in an online and collaborative way as part of a global community.

    It is not my intention to describe the project in detail here. Those who are interested in reading more may download the full report. Rather I wish to highlight a question that emerged from the project and which seems to encompass many of the issues raised by e-learning.

    ‘How far can institutions put a boundary around a learning experience?’

    This question is raised, in this form, by Mayes and de Freitas (2007) who also comment that new technologies mean that ‘learning can be socially situated in a way never previously possible’. With the DiSARM project an issue arose in the form of the negotiation of the boundary between the safe controlled environment of UCL’s VLE Moodle and the wider community beyond. Digital preservation is still in an embryonic state so should the students’ messy and often unsuccessful experimentation with it be contained within the walls of the Moodle or out there on the internet for the benefit of the professional community at large?

    This though would seem to be only one of the frames in which it is possible to see the question of a boundary around the learning experience. For example, it would also seem to encompass current debates about Open Educational Resources and increases in university fees, as well as old ones such as that of the relationship between theory and practice. Sadly I have no easy answers to offer, but one avenue that I think might be worth exploring is a way to combine ideas about ‘authenticity and presence’ (Land and Bayne 2006) with those about e-moderation. E-moderation is a subject of much debate (e.g. Salmon 2000) and there is some evidence (Hewings, Coffin & North 2006) of anxiety amongst teachers, in the context of new e-learning technologies, with regards to their ability to achieve the proper balance between not interfering too much so as to stifle learners learning, and yet not interfering too little so as to allow dominant voices to drown out weaker ones.

    One hypothesis would be then that, what was previously a passive and unacknowledged ‘presence’ has now become an active process of, yes moderation, but perhaps something else as well? Perhaps the role of the teacher has always been to make learning visible, to provide the definition or boundary that allows students to see the ‘something’ they are learning, the frame against which to set and assess it?

    References

    Hewings, A., Coffin, C. & North, S. (2006) Supporting undergraduate students’ acquisition of academic argumentation strategies through computer conferencing, Higher Education Academy report. http://bit.ly/N2G2OU [Accessed June 2012]

    Land, R. and Bayne, S. (2006) Issues in Cyberspace Education. In Savin-Baden, M. & Wilkie, K. (eds) (2006) Problem-based learning online Open University Press.

    Mayes, Y. and de Freitas, S. (2007) Learning and e-learning: the role of theory. In Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. (Eds) (2007) Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: designing and delivering e-learning London, Routledge.

    Salmon, G. (2000) E-moderating: The Key to Teaching and Learning Online London, Kogan Page.

    E-Learning Development Grant (ELDG) scheme – 4 years of successful bids!

    By , on 14 April 2011

    2010_ELDG Berlingieri reportFor the past four years we’ve been given the support of the Office of the Vice Provost to ask UCL staff:

    “Would you like to develop the use of e-learning in your teaching?

    Do you have innovative ideas but need support putting them into practice?”

    It’s been those who’ve responded to this call with creativity, vision, and sometimes strong pragmatism that we’ve then worked with as part of UCL’s E-Learning Development Grant (ELDG) scheme.

    This gives funds to further knowledge and experience of e-learning within UCL. It’s previously been used to:

    • support the development of resources
    • evaluation and technology reviews
    • promote innovating teaching methods
    • or even visiting external institutions for inspiration and to compare practice

    A strong part of the ELDG process is to share and learn from these experiences so each year we ask successful bids to report back so that other members of the community can build on them. These reports now span four years in total and will definitely be of interest to applicants for 2011-12 funding or staff looking for inspiration to draw on.  Though many projects are still ongoing it’s been great to review the reports for completed projects so far,  now up on the page for: ELDG Reports Successful bids from previous years

    Though there are more to come, reports from the 2010-11 session have been more detailed than previously. It’s also been the first to encourage video report/presentations, which’ve been particularly engaging and informative and will now probably be a continuing feature of the scheme.

    This year the Office of the Vice Provost (Academic and International) has made available £40,000 to fund ELDG projects, more than ever before. However, this coming academic year is also the culmination of UCL’s efforts to have all taught modules on Moodle to a ‘baseline’ standard. Of course, many modules already on Moodle have been there for some time and have gone well beyond baseline use. Recognising this and encouraging an enhanced use of Moodle is therefore a strong strand in this year’s grants and proposals  including innovative uses of Moodle or combinations with other UCL integrated technologies  are eagerly anticipated.  (See ELDG Themes and inspiration page)

    For those thinking of applying for an ELDG grant the deadline is fast approaching (April 28th!) so we suggest looking over these previous years’ successful bids and themes and ideas page to get some ideas, reading criteria for application and then applying.

    Last year we received over 40 applications so we look forward to seeing what this new year brings in terms of new practice, ideas and innovation!

    If you have any questions do feel free to contact us.

    ELDG Grants – call for funding

    By Matt Jenner, on 28 February 2009

    There will be a call for E-learning Development Grants (ELDG) funding tonight going to all staff. This blog will contain posts related to the ELDG grants as time goes on.

    To apply visit the ELDG webpage: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/isd/staff/e-learning/funding/eldg