Jisc case studies wiki Case studies / Transformations SMUC - Online Feedback Form and Feed Forward
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.

View
 

Transformations SMUC - Online Feedback Form and Feed Forward

Transformation Project: Online Feedback Form & Feed Forward

Lead Institution: St Mary’s University College (SMUC)

Project Lead: Chiandra Jayasekera (July - December 2012); Dr Katya Toneva (January 2013 - July 2013)

Authors: Dr Katya Toneva (Project Manager), Martin Scarrott (Director Information Services), Gosia Iwaniec (E-learning Support Assistant)

Editing: Catherine O'Sullivan and Dr Iain Cross

 

Background


See the full Transformations programme playlist

 

St Mary’s University College Twickenham was founded by the Catholic Poor Schools Committee in 1850 to meet the need for teachers to provide an education for the increasing numbers of poor Catholic children. Catholic teacher education remains at the heart of its mission today but it has diversified significantly. There are four academic schools: Education, Theology and Leadership; Arts and Humanities; Management and Social Sciences and Sport, Health and Applied Sciences. There are now around 5,000 students and together with the staff they form a strong and supportive community with an emphasis on both academic and pastoral care.

 

The University College has developed a Student Enhancement Framework within which making improvements to assessment and feedback are an important factor. Evidence emerged that there was scope for the enhancement of feedback to students. In last year’s National Student Survey (NSS) the mean score for assessment and feedback was 3.7 with nine programmes receiving scores between 3.5 and 3.3. Further evidence was gathered internally and this led to the formulation of a new assessment policy. This policy lowered the maximum time period within which students should expect their assessment feedback and established the expectation that students should be able to submit their work online and receive an element of online feedback. In order to enable and empower academic staff to make improvements, the University College provides a suite of tools and methods of which audio feedback is one.

 

Aims and objectives

 

The University College made a bid for funding under the JISC Transformation Programme because we were looking for support to enhance the process of providing feedback and we recognised the use of audio feedback as a potential way of transforming the timeliness and quality of feedback in general.

 

The following were identified as important objectives: 

 

  • Examining the nature of feedback
  • Enhancing student engagement with feedback
  • Improving the timeliness of feedback
  • Exploiting the use of technology to enhance feedback timeliness

 

Context

 

The project has taken place in the context of a collegial institution where the centre of the institution imposes relatively few requirements upon staff. This means that the pace of change is slow and generally requires much persuasion and nurturing to implement. Throughout this project the emphasis has been on encouraging staff who are willing to test and then embed new techniques into their practice to disseminate this to their colleagues. The staff who support Technology Enhanced Learning (which is a centrally provided service) are of course aware of much best practice in the sector. They have appreciated JISC support in terms of the provided methodology and resources for the process of starting and sustaining transformational change.

 

The business case

 

One of the aims of the Corporate plan 2011- 16 is to “offer our students through excellent teaching and learning the opportunity to achieve their full academic and career potential”.

 

This ‘Student Enhancement Theme’ was derived from the College’s ‘Quality and Student Experience Enhancement Framework’. In 2009 the UC identified ‘Assessment’ under this strand which was extended to include ‘Assessment Feedback’ in 2011.

 

Key drivers

 

What is the best way to provide timely and informative feedback? How to provide audio feedback to address different learning styles? How may we use the technology to facilitate teaching, learning and assessment? 

 

Perceived strengths of audio feedback:

  • Personal touch
  • Personalised content
  • Can explain difficult things colloquially
  • Depth, clarity and engagement
  • Feels like a conversation

 

Main difficulties perceived:

  • Environment for recording
  • Technology can be issue for lecturers/students
  • Administration rights, i.e, for installing free software on the office computers
  • Unscripted (but this could be also a strength)

 

JISC resources/technology used

 

Our review of JISC resources summarises varied types of audio-recording technologies and identifies suitable approaches for using audio feedback in the context of St Mary’s educational environment. 

 

Using Audio Feedback for Assessment (http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/audio-feedback/)

We have used this introductory guide to familiarise ourselves with audio feedback as a tool in teaching and learning in HE. This guide discusses models of audio feedback and the potential benefits and challenges of using audio over other methods of delivering feedback.

 

We have considered some initial questions (below) which later helped us to evaluate this new method for providing feedback to students.

 

  1. What are the benefits of audio feedback over written or verbal feedback?
  2. Are there any specialist skills that need to be learned by both staff and students?
  3. Is it time/cost effective?  
  4. How do students feel about audio feedback?

 

We have reflected on the JISC resource related to “support assessment through media enhanced feedback” (http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/using-audio-in-teaching-and-learning/ ), and tutors used some of the recommended methodologies for providing audio feedback to students.

 

For example, JISC suggest that tutors should “make the recordings as easy for the student to find as possible which will mean appropriately ‘tagging’ the recording with keywords”. One of the tutors (Jim Moreland) had really thought about this and referenced his files throughout so his students could easily follow the feedback, reading their assignments and referring to the attached tags simultaneously. Jim has shared this effective practical solution in a video interview which is embedded in our Project Blog (www.stmaryselearning.wordpress.com).

 

Types of audio feedback

 

We have considered the three main types of audio feedback that JISC have introduced in their Guidelines http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/audio-feedback/:

 

  • Audio only: creating a digital audio file such as an MP3 or WAV file using Audacity or similar. One of the tutors involved in our extended Pilot (Fiona Wilson) provided audio feedback as MP3 files attached to emails, other tutors (Iain Cross and Oliver Dunnett) used Audacity and uploaded feedback on Moodle).

During the extended Pilot a number of lecturers reviewed JISC resources. Iain Cross chose to use Audacity after a careful consideration of all those recommended. Iain commented that the relevant JISC guides were straightforward and concise and he has found Audacity an easy tool to use for audio recording. He also shared that he decided to produce individual audio feedback rather than to a group even though the suggested “group audio feedback” by JISC, due to the fact that the work submitted by the students was individual. Finally, in regards to technology, Iain suggested that despite what JISC was suggesting he did not experience many issues with technology apart from one minor issue with the software plugin he was using. He overcame the technical problem by applying a few changes of the settings so in general, it was a smooth process.

http://www.jiscdigitalmedia.ac.uk/guide/multimedia-in-pdfs. We have found these approaches very interesting and easy to implement and we are going to introduce these methods during the coming staff development workshops.

  • Synchronous Audio-Video: moving image and audio together, such as video footage or screencasts using Jing or Camtasia. – Some of the tutors have used Camtasia and also iPad applications to implement this method. For example, Chris Hull used an iPad App to record a voice-over to documents and assignments he wanted to discuss with students. This allowed him to highlight key elements to the students. In a video interview, Chris shared that this method helped him to enhance the student engagement in their learning.

 

Reviewed case studies

 

There are a number of recommended show cases and other resources available at JISC websites which helped our project team in writing up this case study and brought our attention to audio feedback approaches that could be explored further by our lecturers. We have considered practices in providing audio feedback in other universities. Additional JISC project resources on e-assessment and feedback, including case studies presented by a number of universities, are available from:

 

A. “Voices from a JISC Assessment Symposium”:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/avfiles/programmes/elearning/assessment/JISCassessmentVoicesWMV.wmv

 

B. “University of Strathclyde” 

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/avfiles/programmes/elearning/assessment/JISCassessmentStrathclydeWMV.wmv

 

C. “University of Westminster”

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/avfiles/programmes/elearning/assessment/JISCassessmentWestminsterWMV.wmv

 

Digital literacy 

 

Developing students’ digital literacy: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/blog/digitalliteracy 

JISC has promoted the idea for embedding digital literacy in the curriculum. We share common understanding that by developing students’ digital competencies we prepare students for the 21st Century workplace. The comments that tutors have shared about their experience in providing audio feedback clearly indicate that the students appreciate more flexible and engaging models of feedback delivery and they are motivated to use the relevant systems (Moodle, TurnitIn) to receive audio feedback.

 

St Mary’s University College share the JISC vision about developing strategies focusing on digital literacies that join-up good practices across the organisation. Our Teaching and Learning Strategies and the newly developed Guidelines for Moodle Course Design reflect these approaches.

 

Outcomes

 

The feedback analysis clearly indicates advantages in providing audio feedback in terms of student engagement. We have also identified a few challenges of the applied approach in terms of distributing audio feedback online via our VLE (Moodle) – we have experienced a problem with uploading large audio files on Moodle 2.2. This issue will be resolved by the use of the new Video Streaming Software (Media Core) which will be part of our integrated VLE for 2013/14 academic year.

 

The findings from this project will be used to review our Teaching and Learning Strategies and to develop a Technology enhanced learning action plan. The project outcomes will also inform the deployment of staff development frameworks and student training procedures.

 

Achievements

 

  • Embedded audio feedback (in Moodle/TurnitIn/Mahara) for a number of courses – This has enhanced student experience and engagement
  • Sharing good practice via the newly created online Academic Community of Practice (ACoP) on StaffNet, online forums, staff development events, (presentations, posters, workshops, seminars), etc.
  • A project video storyboard (one of the key deliverables requested by JISC) – we will upload our video show case on the Project Blog: www.stmaryselearning.wordpress.com
  • On-going reflective comments and evidence for the project development published at our Project Blog: www.stmaryselearning.wordpress.com
  • Student and staff surveys and feedback analysis that will inform the institutional teaching/learning strategies and our future e-learning development practical approaches

 

There were 76 students taking part in the survey (they completed written questionnaires anonymously). Seven lecturers (Jim Moreland, Alex Sinclair, Fiona Wilson, Iain Cross, Oliver Dunnett, Chris Hull and Herve Didiot-Cook) have taken part in the non-anonymous interviews/follow up interviews and focus groups.

 

Feedback analysis:

 

As pointed out by HEFCE (2007) any type of feedback in the students’ eyes have a strong influence on their satisfaction. Interestingly 84.6 % of our students taking part in our extended pilot claimed that they have read or listened to all of the received written or audio feedback. In general, this proves that feedback play an important role in student engagement. 

 

A comparison between written and audio feedback was in favour of the latter. In fact, the data analysis shows that majority of students and teachers (92%) would like to use audio feedback approaches in future, and 54% of the participants in the survey indicated that they would like to explore audio feedback related to exam performance.

Some students suggested that audio feedback gives a feeling for “a meeting”, which can be rewound. Additionally, students expressed that they felt the audio feedback was more engaging in comparison with ordinary feedback. 

 

Nature of feedback:

 

Despite the fact that the majority of students have found the audio feedback very useful, only 61.5% listened to the whole recording.  In general, the length of the recording varied from 3 minutes to 31 minutes, depending on the lecturer’s preferences and/or the number of comments that were made. Interestingly, the lecturer (Chris Hull) who initially created 30 minute recordings based on his students’ feedback cut it down to 10 minutes as he was advised by students that the length was too long. In our survey, other students commented on the length of the recording. A number of students said that they preferred shorter recordings for a variety of reasons. Firstly, when the feedback was too long they were more likely to skip parts of it. Secondly, it seemed that when the recording was shorter students were more inclined to listen to it again (if in doubt on its content, or for clarification). 

 

Below are some quotes taken from interviews with our lecturers:

 

“My feedback was around 3-4 mins. There was no particular rationale for this other than the suggestion that long files were not recommended by JISC. It gave me time to talk about everything that I wanted to. I thought it was a good balance between expanding and discussing but also being brief enough to follow easily.” (Iain Cross).

 

“Employment Law feedback: 31mins - This was a generic audio video synchronous recording aimed at providing detailed feedback on the key expectations, content and approaches that could and should have been adopted. It also highlighted general weaknesses/pitfalls. It was designed to encourage future improvement in the undertaking of assessments.” (Chris Hull)

 

“European and International Law Feedback: 3-5mins - Individual audio video synchronous recording aimed at providing a succinct overview of the key substantive feedback elements and how marks were allocated.” (Chris Hull)

“Five minute in duration - This was because it was the right amount of time I needed to provide generic feedback, and any longer would have infringed too much on the start of a lecture…” (Oliver Dunnett)

 

Some of the lecturers commented that “the amount of details given in oral feedback in comparison to written feedback is greater despite the fact that for some students the audio feedback seems to be too long and some students skip parts of it”.

 

“Giving audio feedback from an academic perspective gets you to really think about it, and communicates why a particular grade was awarded.” For example, what could be done to improve on a particular grade that reflects the balance content-structure? “It is very easy to tick a box and subliminally consider why that mark was given when completing a feedback form, but when you record audio feedback, you feel the need to elaborate more. A five minute recording can provide so much more detail than a single feedback sheet and  probably takes the same time to produce.” (Chris Hull)

 

One of the lecturers (Iain Cross) suggested that in his own experience of producing feedback, “it was much easier to talk rather than write down all ideas”.

 

“Written feedback often restricts you to a few lines whereas audio feedback can give a more detailed set of information for each comment or for each paragraph that you would like to give the feedback on…. “ (Jim Moreland)

 

“It took a while for the feedback to be available online, however I would prefer this method because at times it is impossible to read lecturers handwriting and it might be difficult to chase them up. Also, I can listen to it plenty of times, so this is a clearer way of getting feedback.” (Student B)

 

Furthermore, it was also mentioned that the intonation of the recorded voice is important. It was suggested by a lecturer (Iain Cross) that “what may appear a negative comment on written feedback can be taken as being constructive feedback when spoken, as the tutor can modulate the tone of their voice appropriately”. This is beneficial, in particular, for those students who need more confidence in their work. “It was much better than a written feedback as it was easier to understand through the tone it was used by the lecturer” (Student G)

 

Student engagement with feedback:

 

One of the challenges (mainly for students for whom English is a second language), was the difficulty to understand and follow the comments due to students’ language barriers and/or weak auditory skills. Some students had to listen to the recording a few times to understand what actually has been said.

 

“We cannot get 100% from the feedback because we can’t really understand, however when we can read, we understand all of it.” (Student K)

 

Nevertheless, interestingly, when interviewing lecturers, they expressed that this has been addressed and a lecturer commented that they tried to give as clear feedback as possible. Additionally, one of the lecturers introduced a system of tags and/or points that serve as guidelines to know what part of the text he was referring to. (Jim Moreland)

 

“My feedback was easy to listen to and clear to understand.” (Student A)

One of the lecturers that participated in the extended pilot expressed that, overall, the experience of receiving audio feedback was useful and beneficial for the students learning a second language. In fact, in this particular case students were concentrating on the two most important skills when learning a language – speaking and listening. The array of activities used was large (presentations, comments on pictures, etc).  Students were asked to record themselves followed by the lecturers recording their feedback over the submitted work. (Jim Moreland)

 

“…, if the school/university was able to provide this sort of (audio) feedback this would help with students’ progress.” (Herve Didiot – Cook)

 

“Brilliant! Things were explained properly and I can go back to what the lecturer was saying.  I would pause the audio recording and make sense of what had been said making detailed notes referring to the exact text.” (Student H)

 

It was suggested by a participating lecturer (Iain Cross) that his students have seen feedback as a meeting with him that can be rewound. Students may perceive this as representing a closer relationship between the students and the lecturer. 

 

“Audio feedback was much more personal... I feel like the tutor is actually talking to me, comparing with the traditional feedback where I just have a piece of paper where I will look at the mark and ignore most of the feedback.” (Student G)

 

“Audio feedback, in my opinion, can provide bespoke, detailed and beneficial feedback in a short recording, allowing students to listen on the go and often do other things whilst listening.” (Chris Hull)

 

Finally, when analysing student focus group’s responses, it was remarkable to hear how much difference the listening to a voice can make to student learning and motivation. Having the audio feedback files at their disposal means that the students can have what seems a live review with their tutor, at their own convenience.  The students seemed to really engage with audio feedback and appreciate the personal touch.

 

The use of technology:

 

As mentioned earlier, a number of different software and methods that provide feedback were used by the lecturers participating in our extended Pilot:

 

1) A lecturer of Employment Law (Chris Hull) wanted to produce a short resource using Power Point and an audio recording to provide detailed feedback on the substantive content and approaches that should have been undertaken for the viva voice. This would hopefully assist students in preparing for their final written assessments. In the end, it amounted to a 31-minute recording. However, because it was a synchronous audio-video recording, the students found it engaging and very useful.

 

 2) The same lecturer adopted another method for producing synchronous audio-video recording using an Apple iPad and Doceri software (for providing individual feedback for the extended essay for European and International Labour Law). Doceri is an iPad whiteboard Software which allows drawing on a screen and an audio recording. The lecturer adapted a coursework feedback sheet (something that the students were familiar with), and saved it as a template in Doceri. This allowed him to view the feedback sheet as a backdrop on the whiteboard. He was then able to complete the form on the I-pad using a stylus and to talk about why he had ticked the 2:1 box instead of the 2:2. This produced a 5-6 minute recording. Based on our internal VLE, the lecturer pointed out the issue of a limited size of audio files. Currently, the maximum file size is 20MB. It is worth mentioning that we have addressed this issue and purchased a new software application – Video Streaming Software (Media Core) that will allow uploading larger files to our VLE (Moodle).

 

“One of the drawbacks of using Doceri, is the large file size it produces, which if you were sending to students via email, would have bounced back. I therefore, used a website called Wetransfer which allowed for the files to be uploaded and then downloaded by the students from the website.” (Chris Hull)

 

3) A Geography lecturer (Iain Cross) has used software recommended by JISC – Audacity. With the use of concise and useful JISC guides he didn’t have many problems with its use. He commented that he had a minor issue with the plugin but other than that the programme was straightforward.

 

“It was relatively simple, I chose the recommended approach of open software Audacity to record my comments, and then I was able to make some minor edits to them, then I uploaded them to our VLE (Moodle) which distributed the files to the students.” (Iain Cross)

 

 4) A former lecturer in French (Herve Didiot-Cook) used different types of software that also allowed the inclusion of text.  ‘’We wanted a simple, user friendly tool. We used Wimba voice boards, or you could also use free software Poodle. With the voice boards we would type the summary of the comment to make sure that the students understand the audio feedback”.

 

In general, the choice of technology solely depended on the individual preference of a lecturer. The majority of lecturers did not have major issues, and in case of some technological difficulties, those were quickly and easily resolved. We could examine further to what extend lecturers’/students’ digital literacy helped in overcoming those technical issues.

 

“Using the hardware and software was relatively straightforward”. (Iain Cross)

 

One of the drawbacks however was the time-consuming process of recording feedback and the lack of consistency in providing feedback to students. This disadvantage was mentioned by two lecturers. Additionally, it was suggested that providing guidelines for lecturers on how to convey the audio feedback would reduce common mistakes such as a low or fast speech flow.

 

“When recording the feedback, I had to find time to avoid being disturbed. It’s strange talking to yourself and so I felt a bit self-conscious and sometimes struggled to find the right phrase and tone. However, I was able to pause and rewind the recording to edit what I had said, when necessary”. (Iain Cross)

 

Finally, a question about students’ and lecturers’ digital literacy was asked. Overall, students did not find the use of audio feedback difficult. Only one student mentioned that they did not like the fact that they had to download MP3 files from Moodle. 

 

One of the lecturers commented:

 

“…for the Level 6 module, the students received audio/video feedback for the first time, this was not an onerous task as they had an experience in downloading pod/podcasts for the past two years of their study…For example, within 30 minutes of sending out the individual feedback through ‘Wetransfer’, probably 75% of students (albeit a small cohort), had already downloaded the files.” (Chris Hull)

 

“Interestingly, because the students did not have any difficulties in either producing or receiving audio feedback, this hasn’t really improved students digital literacies because it was at a level where they could cope with it very easily as it is. So, although this hasn’t contributed to their digital literacy that is really a positive thing, as this way of giving feedback is already well aligned with their skills set.” (Iain Cross)

 

Limitations of our action research:

 

This was an extended Pilot conducted in a short period of time. Whilst data depicts attitudes on the perception of audio feedback by lecturers and students, the time frame of the study did not allow us to evaluate how providing/receiving audio feedback could contribute to improving students’ grades. We are planning (for the next academic year) to involve larger and more diverse groups of students to strengthen and broaden the scope of our study and to further inform our teaching/learning strategies.   

 

Key lessons

 

As the feedback analysis indicates, the quality of recording, the pace and clarity of speech of interlocutor is crucial, so listeners could understand not only what the comment was about but also what the commentary was on. 

Most of the tutors involved in the project commented that the use of feedback has made them to think more carefully about the quality of the feedback they provided. A number of tutors shared that providing audio feedback saved them time.

 

It has been acknowledged that students involved in the extended pilot have taken the opportunity to listen to the audio feedback as many times as they needed and this created a feeling of “a meeting” with their tutors. By listening to the voice of their tutors, students perceived their tutors’ recommendations as a constructive way to improve their work rather than as “critical feedback”. This new perception of tutors’ feedback enhanced the student engagement in their learning.

 

Although lecturers participating in the study indicated that, on the whole, “producing audio feedback is fairly straightforward, it entirely depends on the individual teacher’s preferences”. Most of the participant lecturers have combined different digital tools to enhance teaching and assessment, hence producing audio feedback was just another way of facilitating student learning. 

 

Some tutors suggested that a combination of visual and audio feedback is very powerful in terms of student engagement and they would like the opportunity to upload larger audio-video feedback files on our VLE (Moodle). However, it has been identified that Moodle could not cope well with large audio-video files. Information Services offered a suitable solution – installing a new plugin to Moodle (MediaCore Video-Streaming Software).

 

Although most of the students regarded audio feedback on a positive note, others felt less favourability. This may relate to a number of drawbacks mentioned above, or might be a result of personal preferences and individual learning styles. It is evident that audio feedback does not cater for all learning styles hence some students, and lecturers will not be interested in this approach. Perhaps a mixed approach shared by one of our lecturers would be ideal to suit all learners - namely, audio feedback with an attached written summary. However, the time and effort for a lecturer to produce two types of feedback may not be feasible.

 

Some quotes from interviews with lecturers:  

 

“Feedback from students showed me that some students actually like to read, they like to look more visually at feedback, but others quite appreciate being able to listen to somebody’s voice…” (Jim Moreland)

“Audio feedback provides an alternative and additional means of feedback and may assist those students who are audible learners.” (Chris Hull)

 

One key lesson learnt through this project is that our academic staff are keen to try out and adopt alternative methods for providing feedback including audio feedback if they see workable solutions that meet their students’ needs. Sharing case studies by the project pilot group of tutors is vital in terms of promoting good practice across the institution.

 

Another key lesson is that the project success and sustainability is down to a combination of management approaches: “Bottom-up Approach” (through involvement of key individual members of staff/e-champions), “Horizontal Approach” (across the departments, through involvement of Programme and Academic Directors), and a gentle “Top-down Approach” (through reviewing relevant teaching, learning and assessment policy and strategy documents).

 

At our reflective Project Blog: http://stmaryselearning.wordpress.com/, we have commented on our approaches and solutions.

 

Looking ahead and sustainability

 

We have reflected on the “transformation” impact of our project work – how the institutional teaching/learning policies have been informed by the JISC Audio Feedback Project? We have analysed the collected feedback from students, academic staff and Senior Academic Leaders and communicated the project findings widely across the institution. 

 

There have been discussions of audio feedback, and Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) in general, at various university college wide committees. These include the E-Learning Sub-Committee, Teaching and Learning Committee and the IT Strategy Task Force. Various aspects of TEL have featured in a number of institutional wide and school based staff development events, including the Teaching & Learning Away Day. Two externally facilitated workshops have also been delivered. 

 

In particular, a joint student and staff workshop led by an external facilitator (Dr Rod Cullen) – 11th July, proved to be very useful in terms of enforcing a cross-institutional impact. (Dr Rod Cullen is a Senior Lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University with considerable expertise in e-learning including audio feedback.)

 

The half day workshop led by the external expert was very interactive and informing.  Rod delivered an engaging presentation and facilitated collaborative tasks and activities for all participants (lecturers and students). During the introductory session, Rod explored the purpose of assessment and the context in which lecturers provide feedback. However, the main focus of the workshop was the Audio Feedback Theme. The participants were involved in active discussions and team activities. Lecturers and students shared perceptions, good practices, concerns and approaches for providing/receiving audio feedback. 

 

We have collected a number of constructive ideas which will inform the Technology Enhanced Learning Development Plan for the next academic year.

 

The challenge will be to maintain the momentum and to further engage greater numbers of academic staff in creating and maintaining change. We will continue to work with the extended team of e-champions across all departments (schools) – they are our e-learning development ambassadors and they will play an important role in promoting the project outcomes, sharing good practice in using audio feedback and involving their peers to pilot a variety of ways for providing feedback to their students, supporting different learning styles.

 

In response to the increased interest for uploading audio feedback files to our VLE (Moodle), Information Services have upgraded the existing VLE infrastructure by adding a new plugin to Moodle (MediaCore Video Streaming Software) that will provide the facilities for uploading large audio and video files.

 

The project findings have informed the new Guidelines for Moodle Course Design that were approved by the Teaching and Learning Committee and our lecturers will be expected to follow these instructions in the new academic year. The Guidelines include a requirement for providing an element of online feedback and we believe that a number of tutors will choose the option for providing audio feedback online.

 

We have taken the opportunity to promote the project outcomes not only across the institution but also internationally. On 23rd July 2013 we presented our collaborative article “Developing an Online Academic Community of Practice (ACoP)” (co-authors: Dr Katya Toneva, Dr Iain Cross, Martin Scarrott), at the International Conference COLLA 2013 , Nice, France. We reflected on our JISC Audio Feedback Project and discussed how we could use the online ACoP on StaffNet (Sharepoint) to make the project approaches sustainable. Our presentation attracted the interest of all participants in our session. Our article is published and can be downloaded from here.

 

We are discussing ideas for collaboration with colleagues from other universities where similar projects have been developed.

 

Appendix

 

Project blog: www.stmaryselearning.wordpress.com

Project video storyboard