Open Badges: Trying to navigate through the melting pot of ideas

A short literature review on open badges in Higher Education generates a large number of conflicting emotions and views around their potential. I’d sum these up as follows;

1. uncertainty
2. excitement
3. potential
4. irrelevance
5. anxieties
6. disruptive
7. game changer
8. questionable
9. learner centred

This short discussion explores what underpins these emotions and opinions, and how a HE Institution might progress with open badges in the short term.

Open badges are relatively new. “There is currently little in the formal literature relating to their use or impact” (Glover & Latif (2013:1402)). Their importance as a means of accrediting learning was highlighted in the Innovating Pedagogy Report 2013, and it is clear open badges play a role in enabling many of the ideas discussed within the Innovating Pedagogy Report 2014.

A digital badge is a validated indicator of accomplishment, skill, quality or interest (http://www.hastac.org). From the learner’s perspective this opens up the opportunity of their learning environment no longer being tied to a structured classroom or online space, but being wider, encompassing formal and informal learning opportunities. Badges enable learners to navigate “multiple pathways to gain competencies and refine skills through open, remixable and transparent tools, resources and process” (Mozilla Foundation (2012:4). Within this context open badges are the method to demonstrate the outcomes of this evolving learning journey.

Given open badges are a recent innovation, this discussion is grounded within the knowledge they will undergo significant changes. Carey (2012) states, “many of the first badge systems will fail … they won’t be designed well enough or properly connected to communities of interest”.

The question is, what are the current discussions around open badges?

Glover and Latif (2013)’s study indicates the use of badges in formal education is a conceptual struggle, however students and staff are engaged within creative discussions. For instance, staff wish to explore badges within reference writing, while the students wish to differentiate badges with some only available to high achievers. However, both groups felt employer engagement was important.

Gibson et al., (2015) review of badges in HE see the uses around incentivising learners to engage in positive learning behaviours, identify progress in learner and provide credits for engagement, learning and achievements. They explore the positive potential on a leaners motivation, through status recognition and evidence of achievement.

Carey (2012) explores the impact on traditional assessment and recognition methods in HE. His discussion highlights the disruptive nature of badges and their potential as a game changer. Carey (2012) notes, open badges make the standard college transcript look like a sad and archaic thing. Where the information within the transcript is both limited in quantity and usefulness to employers. On one level this challenges the current locus of control within the the assessment process. For instance, the wider use and acceptance of badges would encourage the learner to develop their own assessment framework.

The previous point hinges on the acceptance of open badges across society. Therefore, the role of employers becomes critical. Open badges enable a learner to present a rich picture of themselves, however, adoption is dependent on them being credible to employers and professional bodies. Therefore, they will succeed or fail on how desirable people find the issued badges (Glover 2013).

Davies et al., (2015) identify there is significant opportunity of using open badges to certify practice compared to the current practice based on a degree and examination route. They outline a top-down design framework and conclude with “a carefully prepared and effeciently implemented certification system based on open badges could potentially provide a transparent, flexible, efficient, rigorous and credible way of certify evaluators” (Davies et al., (2015:161).

Some of the emerging concerns from the literature are around the rigour of the badge and the badging system. Currently, the rigour of the assessment criteria and trust is placed on those who authorized the badge. Therefore, questions must be asked concerning what mechanisms are in place and how is quality assured? Goligoski’s (2012) review summarises public concerns of open badges, and provides a longer term perspective around badges becoming just a commodity, which as digital assets may exclude some individuals, resulting in an uneven implementation. If this occurs, it would be expected open badges will remain on the periphery.

Within the above context, the next question is, how might an institution progress with its open badge initiatives?

The starting is institutions need to start piloting the use of open badges within the formal and informal learning provision.

The less contentious route is to focus on the informal learning mechanisms within an institution as a means of piloting a number of initiatives. The pilot needs to help the institution articulate the questions to ask within its context. For instance, what do students and staff currently perceive as the potential of open badges? What value do local employers place on open badges? How should be manage the open badge infrastructure? While addressing the trickier questions at the heart of the debate, what value does a badge have? Should be we concerned about comparing learning effort across badges?

At UCS the first stage has been to develop the infrastructure, and pilot some uses around informal learning opportunities, including reflections on conferences and workshops, and the completion of study skill workshops. This has developed a broader understanding of the answers to some of the earlier questions, while building up confidence and capacity in a robust and resilient infrastructure. On reflection, within the literature this is prevalent approach, the toe in the water, to help contextualise what open badges mean to us.

However, for successful technological adoption, we’ll need to ensure two key elements are aligned if these small scale, unconnected pilots are to morph into an institutional wide impact.

1. Leadership from the top. At the moment there is no senior / academic lead endorsing and driving the change programme and pilot. However, this is required so they can articulate how the technology supports the institutional strategic vision.
2. Institutional commitment and investment. The provision of ring fencing resources to deliver the change. A successful pilot project will require academic staff input. Therefore, involvement must be recognised as a valid activity for staff and is reflected within workload models.
3. Engage with local employees to discuss their opinion of badges and the potential  role they play

I would suggest if an institution wished to progress on open badges it does not need to go through the early adopter, proof of concept stage, as there are enough lessons learnt within the public domain. They should progress straight to a large scale pilot with top level institutional support.

Further Reading

• Carey, K. (2012) A Future Full of Badges. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/A-Future-Full-of-Badges/131455/ (Accessed: 17 June 2015)
• Davies, R., Randall, D. and West, R. E. (2015) ‘Using Open Badges to Certify Practicing Evaluators’, American Journal of Evaluation, 36(2), pp. 151–163. doi: 10.1177/1098214014565505
• Gibson, D., Ostashewski, N., Flintoff, K., Grant, S. and Knight, E. (2013) ‘Digital badges in education’, Education and Information Technologies, 20(2), pp. 403–410. doi: 10.1007/s10639-013-9291-7
• Glover, I. (2013) Open badges: a visual method of recognising achievement and increasing learner motivation. Available at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/7612 (Accessed: 17 June 2015)
• Glover, I. and Latif, F. (2013) Investigating perceptions and potential of open badges in formal higher education. Available at: http://shura.shu.ac.uk/7173 (Accessed: 17 June 2015)
• Goligoski, E. (2012) ‘Motivating the Learner: Mozilla’s Open Badges Program’, Access to Knowledge, 4(1), pp. 1–8.
• Humanities, Arts, Science and Technology Alliance and Collaboratory (ed.) (no date) Digital Badges. Available at: http://www.hastac.org/collections/digital-badges (Accessed: 17 June 2015)
• Jovanovic, J. and Devedzic, V. (2014) ‘Open Badges: Novel Means to Motivate, Scaffold and Recognize Learning’, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(1), pp. 115–122. doi: 10.1007/s10758-014-9232-6
• Open University (ed.) (no date) Innovating Pedagogy 2014 | Open University Innovations Report #3. Available at: http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/innovating/ (Accessed: 17 June 2015)
• The Mozilla Foundation (ed.) (2012) Open Badges for Lifelong Learning. Available at: https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/5/59/OpenBadges-Working-Paper_012312.pdf (Accessed: 17 June 2015)

The use of clickers at UCS: Reflections on 2013/14

This blog post is the annual report on the use of Clickers (Audience response systems) by teaching staff at UCS. For more information on how the clickers can help your teaching, learning and assessment models, please contact elevate@ucs.ac.uk

Executive Summary

The Elevate Team at UCS manage the Audience Response System (clickers), and have responsibility for evaluating their use within learning, teaching and assessment. The service aims to enable staff to effectively use audience response systems in their face to face teaching, learning and assessment practice.

The following report covers the period September 1st, 2013 to April 29th, 2014, and aims to address;

• Are clickers being used by staff at UCS and are they likely to continue using them?
• Do staff perceive clickers add value to their teaching, and the student learning experience?

The evidence suggests clickers are being used. Between 1st September, 2013 and 29th April 2014 the clicker were booked on 59 occasions by 26 staff. This is a large increase from the previous year, where the figures were 27 occasions by 16 staff.

The broad findings are in line with previous year. Staff who use clickers perceive they add value to the learning experience. On occasions this evolves into a number changing their face to face teaching plans to effectively embed this learning technology. However, the level of engagement by lectures at UCS with using Clickers is still relatively small. At the current moment we are not encountering any significant barriers to use.

The recommendations for the next academic year (2014/15) are;

1. Review the online booking form based on commented from the last survey, and include links to FAQs within automated email response
2. Look at RFID technology to offer a scan in & scan out service for better tracking
3. Provide more printed help material for staff
4. Coordinate the staff awareness and development programme, including, collect stories, posters and within structured staff development programme

Background

From January 2011, the Elevate Team started administering the audience response system (clickers) at UCS. The service aimed to administer the loan of clickers and develop staff in their use of audience response systems (TurningPoint Clickers) to enhance face to face teaching.

The backdrop to the Elevate Team’s interest has been the rapid uptake of audience response systems across the UK HE Sector. This uptake has many drivers, one of which is the emerging assessment and feedback agenda.

The 2012/13 Annual Review outlined a number of recommendations which have been been implemented or part implemented. These are;

1. Include printed (A5) quick guides within the Clicker bag on uses within teaching and learning Not completed - roll over for 2014/15
2. Publish a set of quarterly blog posts on How clickers are being used within Higher Education Completed. Continue for 2014/15 as an implicit component of the service.
3. Re-design the online staff development material, including; FAQs, Guides and Short Courses for Clickers Explored - waiting for UCS Infozone online
4. continue to pilot the Poll Everywhere service as a complementary classroom voting / interaction tool for subjective questioning Service discontinued - no avialable budget
5. arrange a webinar with an external speaker on the topic of enhancing teaching, learning and assessment through the use of Clickers Not completed - roll over for 2014/15
6. be more proactive in raising staff awareness of effective use of learning technology Completed. Continue for 2014/15 as an implicit component of the service.

Methodology

The data was collected via an online survey during May 2014. The respondents were identified as those who had booked the clickers between Sept 2013 and April 2014. The respondents were self selecting. The question design was informed by the previous year to allow a longitudinal context.

The response rate was 35%, with 9 respondents from a possible 26 people. It is acknowledged this is not a statistically significant response rate.

Findings and discussion

The following discussion focuses on answering two key questions;

• Are clickers being used by staff at UCS and are they likely to continue using them?
• Do staff perceive clickers add value to their teaching, and the student learning experience?

The evidence is drawn from two sources; log data from the booking form, and a staff survey carried out during May 2014. It is important to note this is a very small sample population, therefore, these results give an indicator and should not be viewed as representative of the views of all staff across UCS.

Are the clickers being used by staff at UCS and are they likely to continue to using them?

The evidence suggests clickers are being used. Between 1st September, 2013 and 29th April 2014 the clicker were booked on 59 occasions by 26 staff. This is a large increase from the previous year, where the figures were 27 occasions by 16 staff.

Table 1 illustrates the level of repeat bookings by staff.

Table 1: Number of times an individual booked the clickers

Frequency of bookings	Number of people (2103/14)	Number of people (2012/13)
1	12	5
2	6	7
3	3	1
4	6	1
5	1	-
6	1	-

Overall, there has been a very encouraging uptake of Clickers during the period, compared to the previous years. The proportion of staff re-booking has also remained high, even with the increase in staff using them (65% in 2012/13 and 58% in 2013/14).

The survey question asked, are you planning to use clickers again in your teaching? The responses identified all respondents (n=9) were planning on using them again.

The next question focussed on, do staff perceive clickers add value to their teaching, and the student learning experience?

It was evident 8 respondents (100%) thought the use of clickers in face to face teaching adds to the student learning experience. When asked, why? the responses clustered around key concepts of student engagement, feedback and the technology helped the lecturer adapt their teaching if required. For instance,

“The versatility of the system offers to students immediate feedback on their chosen option/answer. The graph showing percentages helps them realising how the answers are distributed and perhaps how 

"generally difficult" a question was. This helps also the lecturer to spot areas that require further revision or explanation for the students. In terms of being used for revision sessions, clickers render everything more easy and straightforward, instead of time consuming approaches such as mock exams. Clickers are a great tool for enhancing learning and teaching”

“Students are more engaged - I think they feel more inclined to come up with an actual answer to the question (as opposed to quietly sitting in their seat waiting for the answer).”

“As a teaching and learning tool this clickers are very effective. Students assess the gaps in their own knowledge. It also adds variety to the session.”

The quotes are representative of the responses and highlight a genuine perception from staff that clickers add value to the learning experience. This view is evident as some staff are starting to change their session plan to include clicker activities within their sessions. For instance, when asked if you used clickers in a previous academic year, could you describe if your teaching approach has changed through their use? The responses indicated a developmental aspect.

“Practice makes perfect - I now use them in induction, in lectures, taster sessions and conferences.”

“My personal teaching style was definitely influenced by the positive reaction of the students while I was trialling Clickers.”

“My approach has changed as I continuously consider ways to make my teaching more interactive”

So how are staff using clickers in their teaching? The following set of quotes capture the way clickers have been used across the period. They indicate the use has tended to be formative, as a stimulus for small group discussions and to consolidate learning.

“Providing tutorials on final assessments.”

“As a method to assess understanding of the taught session. (ie multiple choice questions about the teaching session). As an adjunct to the teaching session (case scenarios during powerpoint presentations)”

“I've used the clickers in several ways:

• as part of review quiz to help me assess student understanding
• as part of a review quiz to help students identify where they need additional help
• for a "fun quiz" so participants (of workshops -- non-students) to see what they know and/or what others in the group think
• for statistics class, to generate numbers that students could crunch to see if there are significant differences between groups within the class”

An alternative indicator for perceived value by staff is “would recommend a clickers to colleagues within their departments”. The rationale being if they think it is not an effective learning tool, they are unlikely to recommend it to their peers. When asked the extent to which they agreed with the following statement, six respondents strongly agreed (75%), and the other two agreed (25%). The statement was, “I’d strongly recommend the use of clickers in face to face teaching to my work colleagues”. This is an improvement on the previous year.

The survey identified a number of common themes based on the two questions; How can the Elevate Team help you? and What hurdles are you encountering? Two themes emerged;

• A feeling of frustration as the software differed throughout UCS. This is due to the Microsoft OS roll out, which meant we have two versions of TurningPoint within the institution. This will be rectified in the summer 2014 as the OS upgrade is completed.
• A sense of not being aware of the software’s full capabilities. This needs to be addressed through more staff awareness.

Recommendations

Based on the survey and a number of other conversations, the recommendations are:

1. Review the online booking form based on commented from the last survey, and include links to FAQs within automated email response
2. Look at RFID technology to offer a scan in & scan out service for better tracking
3. Provide more printed help material for staff
4. Coordinate the staff awareness and development programme, including, collect stories, posters and within structured staff development programme

The power of the MCQ exam: Optical Mark Reading (OMR) Service at UCS: Annual Report 2013-14

This blog post is the annual report for the OMR Service which is run by the Elevate Team for course teams at UCS Ipswich. For more information on how the OMR service can help your teaching and assessment model, please contact elevate@ucs.ac.uk

Executive Summary

During 2013/14

• one additional course team have started using the OMR Service for a Level 5 summative exam.
• The total number of course teams using the service was 5
• The total number of papers set was 17
• The total number of answer sheets scanned was 516

The recommendations for 2014/15 are;

• Be more proactive in promoting the service to course teams across UCS
• Reduce potential points of failure within the service, including, reducing the current risk where the is software being installed on one desktop, which is off site, only one member of the team is aware how to use it

Background

The Elevate Team have been running an OMR Service since 2011-12. The aim of the service is to provide an opportunity for course teams to use Objective Testing (low and high stake) in their assessment and feedback models at UCS. The service complements the use of the Quiz (Test) Engine in LearnUCS. Please note, we do not recommend or support the use of LearnUCS in UCS Computer Labs or alternative learning spaces for summative, high stake assessment.

The Elevate Team use the FormReturn Software / Service (http://www.formreturn.com/), with a local install on one of the Elevate Team’s iMacs.

Workflow

The workflow for the creation, distribution and return of OMR exams is outlined in Figure 1. This illustrates the process is a cross team.

 

The workflow is also available from;

• https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/1WGsL3PwCzzc7lJcheJu3x8MaP9KNrUC3YQ2Xj2TtsiQ/edit?usp=sharing

An illustration of an uncompleted answer sheet is included in Appendix 1. This follows current good practice within design, which has been discussed with the Registry / Examination Office to ensure it accommodates UCS requirements.

Usage and feedback on the OMR Service: 2013-14

This section aims is to answer three questions:

• is service being used?
• are staff happy with the service
• how might the service be enhanced?

The methodology involves reviewing the log data to identify if the service is being used, and undertake a survey to capture staff views.

The log data indicates the service has been used. Between 1st September, 2013 and 9th May, 2014

The programmes using it for summative exams are:

• BA Business Management
• Foundations of Biological and Cognitive Psychology
• Child and Social Policy
• Radiation Physics
  • The total number of course teams using the service were 5
  • The total number of papers set were 17
  • The total number of answer sheets scanned were 516

Admission process

An ongoing commitment is to support the admissions process the Radiography Team. They deploy run a Literacy Test (20 questions) and Numeracy Test (24 questions). During 2013-14 the Elevate Team administered 12 tests (6 instances), with 232 scans.

A survey was administered to gather staff opinions around the value of, and potential to enhance the service. The response rate was 4 out 5 (50%). All four respondents are planning to use the service in 2014/15, two strongly agreed with the statement “I’d strongly recommend the use of OMR in teaching, learning and assessment to my work colleagues”.

We use the OMR as the first assessment in a level 4 module. We have found that students engage very well with the specific learning materials in preparation for the exam. In contrast to the previous assessment which was an essay, students focus on the provided revision material which is directly linked to the learning outcomes for the module, they receive feedback in a matter of days after the exam when previously they had to wait much longer for up to 120 essay scripts to be marked by two tutors.

Feedback from the students is overwhelmingly positive and summative results have improved.
With respect to potential issues, one response focussed on the initial setting up and refreshing of questions, given the potential of three exams a year to the cohort. Therefore, course teams need to develop a large bank of questions. While another response raised issues around their need for a quicker turnaround, in particular, results being available within the working day of the assessment.

Recommendations

• Be more proactive in promoting the service to course teams across UCS
• Reduce potential points of failure within the service, including, reducing the current risk where the is software being installed on one desktop, which is off site, only one member of the team is aware how to use it

Getting Started with Augmented Reality as a Learning Technology

Aims

The primary audience for this discussion are lecturers who are wishing to get started with Augmented Reality within their teaching and learning. The aims of the paper are to answer the questions;

• What is Augmented Reality as a learning technology?
• How is Augmented Reality being used in teaching and learning?
• What do you need to consider if you wish to use Augmented Reality in your teaching?

Background

The Elevate Team work closely with staff and students to encourage, enable and evaluate the use of technology in learning and teaching at the University Campus Suffolk. In particular, to;

• Help staff to integrate innovative technologies to enhance their teaching programmes
• Share innovation and good practice through facilitating an active community
• Evaluate the impact of enhancements on the student learning experience

Develop and pilot ways to enhance and develop learning through innovative technologies
The Elevate Team have been using the Aurasma Augmented Reality Software since 2011.  Aurasma uses advanced image and pattern recognition technology to identify and understand images and objects in the real world, blending them with rich interactive content such as videos and animations.

What is Augmented Reality?

“First and foremost, augmented reality is a set of technologies that seek to integrate the digital with the real. There are several versions and flavors of AR, but there are certain things that all of these have in common: displays, input devices, tracking, and computers.” - (Carmigniani et al (2011))

The goal of augmented reality is to add information and meaning to a real object or place. Unlike virtual reality, augmented reality does not create a simulation of reality. Instead, it takes a real object or space as the foundation and incorporates technologies that add contextual data to deepen a person’s understanding of the subject. For example, by superimposing imaging data from an MRI onto a patient’s body, augmented reality can help a surgeon pinpoint a tumor that is to be removed. In this case, the technology used might include headgear worn by the surgeon combined with a computer interface that maps data to the person lying on the operating table. In other cases, augmented reality might add audio commentary, location data, historical context, or other forms of content that can make a user’s experience of a thing or a place more meaningful.

Another term that can be used to describe augmented reality is ‘Visual Browsing’. A display is required to overlay the digital material on to the real world. With the fast moving world of technology and the pace that technology improves, both smartphones and tablets are now powerful enough to run augmented reality applications. When using a smartphone or tablet with augmented reality applications you can see why the term ‘visual browsing’ has been coined, you get a sense of visual interacting with your surroundings. You are able to ‘browse’ the available digital content that is displayed to you.

How is Augmented Reality being used in teaching and learning?

By its nature, augmented reality lends itself to a marketing tool. UCS’ first public use of the ‘AR’ was not in the field of teaching and learning, but as a project with the Marketing and External Relations department. UCS launched one of the first University prospectuses with embedded video content.

When researching what other institutions have been doing with augmented reality some of the first examples you will find are along the marketing lines, you need to dig deeper to find the practical examples being used in education.

To answer the question of how is augmented reality being used in other institutions we will draw upon three case studies.

Case Study 1: SCARLET Project, Mimas, University of Manchester

SCARLET stands for Special Collections using Augmented Reality to Enhance Learning and Teaching

http://teamscarlet.wordpress.com/category/mimas

“SCARLET demonstrates how Augmented Reality (AR) can bring educational resources to life by surrounding original materials with digital, online content. By adopting a mixed-team approach, with academics, librarians and technical staff, we’re helping UK universities gain knowledge and skills to enhance their collections using AR.” - Mimas website

The initial work of the SCARLET project was to work with the world-renowned St John’s fragment. The small fragment measures less than 9cm in height and is of great importance. It can be confidently dated to the first half of the second century A.D.


Fragment of St. John's gospel

With this piece of papyri being not only very rare, but also very fragile, the John Rylands Library, Manchester where it resides would still like to show this wonderful artefact.

The team at SCARLET worked with academics to make a digital version of the complete manuscript from which this fragment makes up a small percentage. Using the fragment as a ‘trigger’ image for the augment application to recognise, this then overlaid the complete manuscript on the screen of the device, with the real time image from the devices camera.

This enabled students/visitors to hold their device smartphone/tablet over the fragment (in a display case) and to see how the manuscript would have looked if it was an undamaged, complete document.

The SCARLET project has since worked with a number of academics and other institutions to further develop their understanding of effective uses of augmented reality in education.

Case Study 2: Engaging Students at Bromley College

http://teamscarlet.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/an-ar-experiment-engaging-students-at-bromley-college/

Barry Spence at Bromley College had already been looking at using the Aurasma platform to see how students engaged with augmented reality. Barry created some revision cards that once viewed with an appropriate device, would overlay that card with video, giving the lecturers thoughts on that revision topic.

• This lead to a successful application for an Innovation Project. The project aimed to;
• To explore the potential for Augmented Reality to leverage student engagement.
• The possibility of enriching paper based course materials with voice-overs, animations, videos and images.
• Investigate the potential of replacing standard A4 course notes.
• Take advantage of what has become the widespread ownership among students of Smartphone and Tablet Devices in accessing these new materials.

The viability of utilising Augmented Reality technology in support of mobile learning from both the perspective of student learning experience and wider network accessibility.

A double-sided A4 flyer was produced, folder in half to be an A5 leaflet. Each page had specific references to digital material which comprised of a video, two animations with voice overs and a link to a moodle quiz.

The overall effectiveness was measured by each group completing a chart, recording their overall sense of competence before the lecture, after the lecture and following the use of the augmented reality materials.

A prerequisite of the talking part in the project relied upon students owning suitable Smartphone or tablet devices, of the original forty only sixteen had suitable access.

The screenshot of the spreadsheet chart below shows the competence outcomes of the participants 1 (very high) to 10 (very low). An initial visual assessment of the outcome reveals that of the sixteen taking part, four students felt that the inclusion of AR materials had not improved their sense of competence in the subject. However 12 did indicate that the AR had made a measurable impact. Taking the average for improvements gives a figure of 2.42 (almost 25%).

“This was the first trial of using AR here at the College for a single target group. The results gained from the feedback are certainly encouraging. With regard to the five points outlined in the overview for the project, I feel these have all at least in part proved worthwhile as criteria for inclusion in future augmented reality project work.” (Barry Spence 2013)

Case Study 3: University of Exeter - Unlocking the Hidden Curriculum

One of the first uses of augmented reality in education was by University of Exeter. Unlocking the Hidden Curriculum was a Jisc funded project from 2010/11.

http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/augmentedreality/

The main campus of the University of Exeter is built on a country estate overlooking the city and surrounding countryside. The campus includes a variety of distinctive habitats and is rich in biodiversity. Students and grounds staff have regularly collected data through their programmes of study and conservation activities but this information and knowledge has hitherto remained hidden from the wider community.

The project will enable the campus to function as a ‘living laboratory’ and reveal a dynamic landscape of flora and fauna at any time of day or season to a variety of audiences who wish to interact with this unique location. Using Augmented Reality, the campus will be transformed into an accessible learning resource to support the formal and informal curriculum. Scientific data will be presented in a creative way to interpret the living landscape and promote engagement with Education for Sustainable

Development (ESD).

Visitors to the campus equipped with suitable smartphones/tablet devices will be able to trigger information presented as rich visual and audio media as they explore a variety of habitats and areas of particular interest. This location-specific information appears as an overlay superimposed on a viewing screen fed by the smartphone’s built in camera. (Project website: http://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/augmentedreality/about/)

Below is a video showcasing the Biodiversity data using the Layar application.

Two of these three case studies use augmented reality in an immersive fashion. Both University of Manchester’s Mimas team with Project Scarlet and the University of Exeter and their Unlocking the Hidden Curriculum take the end user out of their normal environment.

This allows for modification and redefinition of the learning activities, whereas the Bromley College example acts as a substitution of the activity. According to the SAMR model Puentedura (2009) the technology acts as a direct tool substitute, with no functional change.

It would be possible for the Bromley College example to completed without the addition of the augmented reality, although this is the case, it does still give a ‘wow’ factor.

What do you need to consider if you wish to use Augmented Reality in your teaching?

As previously mentioned the pace of change in technology is very fast moving. This has meant that authoring augmented reality applications has been getting easier with each iteration of the software tools.

We are now in a position where you do not need to be a computer programmer or web developer to be able to make some very interesting ‘AR’ materials. Once a platform has been chosen - here at UCS, Aurasma has been the platform of choice - there are two key requirements;

1. An effective and appropriate Learning Design
2. Required multimedia and web based resources

AR is just another tool that can be used, as with other tools learning design is king. The activity/resource must be thought through, learning outcomes decided. Planning the use of materials will allow you to think through how you want it to work, and if AR is actually the most effective technology to use.

The actual creation of the augmented reality materials is now all done through a web site. Following a few easy steps means you can create some really exciting materials. For example the workflow below shows the limited number of steps to go from having a couple of resources. One acting as the ‘trigger’ - what your devices recognises and the other as the ‘overlay’ - the action that happens once the trigger is recognised (for example a video plays when a photograph is recognised.


This video shows how easy Aurasma is to author. The video shows how to add a trigger image and overlay video, and then how to make the system recognise them - creating the ‘aura’, which is the name given to process of a trigger image being recognised and the action of the overlay playing.

What are we focussing on at UCS?

An area that has been popular with lecturing staff have been research posters. A number of lecturers have approached the Elevate Team to help develop interactive posters, there have been two main reasons for this.

1. To included multimedia material
2. To allow more information if the poster is unaccompanied

Being able to stand in front of a poster, hold up a mobile device to receive a video of the researcher talking through their methodologies or sharing their conclusions, really does bring the materials to life. Below is a link to a Research Poster that went to a national conference. Rather than showing video, this poster triggers audio recordings of students discussing their course. To accompany the audio, keywords from the audio are displayed,

Conference Poster: 


To move this along from being a just passive onlooker, we have been looking at ways of creating more interaction, to engage the cognitive processes. Using ‘overlay sequencing’ in the Aurasma developer studio means we are able to create individual pathways through the materials. In essence we are able have different clickable hot spots in the digital material. This allows us to create quiz questions, that the users selects the answer on screen, to then reveal further digital material.

One example we have created so far is a lecturer posing a question, with multiple choice answers appearing on screen, the user then selects their answer. Another video can then be played giving feedback for the previous answer. Further questions can then be asked, or the user can be directed to more resources. A demonstration of a prototype of this in is below:

The intention in the future is to further develop this approach and combining the approach and lessons learnt from the work at Bromley College.

Conclusion

Looking at the use cases here at UCS and case studies wider afield, augmented reality has not become mainstream as yet. Currently there is a need to find that “killer” application for the technology. One use that will capture the creativity of the subject and lecturers. The one that captures the enthusiasm of the learners, but still has a proven learning design and pedagogical values.

One hope for the future is that an Open Standard for Augmented Reality platforms can be found. This would mean that you are not tied into one platform from one supplier. Currently there are a number of platforms, if you develop your content in one of those, it is not possible for it to be accessed via the others. This would require a huge leap forward, but an Open Standard would also make future use more appealing.

References

Carmigniani , J. ; Furht , B. ; Anisetti , M. ; Ceravolo , P. ; Damiani , E. ; and Ivkovic , M. (2011) Augmented Reality Technologies, Systems and Applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications 51 , no. 1 : 341 – 477 (Accessed: 31 January 2014)

Vaughan-Nichols , S.J. (2009) Augmented Reality: No Longer a Novelty. Computer 42 , no. 12 : 19 – 22 (Accessed: 31 January 2014)

SCARLET (Special Collections using Augmented Reality to Enhance Learning and Teaching) (2013) Available at: http://teamscarlet.wordpress.com/category/mimas (Accessed 6 March 2014)

Mimas Powering Knowledge (2014) Available at: http://mimas.ac.uk/portfolio/scarlet/ (Accessed 6 March 2014)

Fragment of St. John's gospel. Available at http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/searchresources/guidetospecialcollections/stjohnfragment/ (accessed: 6 March 2014)

Getting started with the flipped classroom teaching model

Background

The aim of this discussion is to help teaching staff at UCS contextualise a flipped classroom teaching model and identify what tools might facilitate ‘flipped classroom” within their learning designs. Therefore, it is not intended to be a definitive introduction to this fluid topic, and after reading this you are encouraged to contact the Elevate Team to discuss your ideas further.

The Elevate Team encourage staff to think about a flipped classroom teaching and learning model. This includes supporting and developing individuals and course teams to achieve their objectives.

The discussion addresses the following questions;

• what is a flipped classroom?
• what educational context underpins a flipped classroom?
• what technologies might facilitate the flipped classroom at UCS?
• how might it work in practice?

What is the flipped classroom?

Educase (2012) suggest the “flipped classroom is a pedagogical model in which the typical lecture and homework elements of a course are reversed.

Short video lectures are viewed by students at home before the class session, while in-class time is devoted to exercises, projects, or discussions. The video lecture is often seen as the key ingredient in the flipped approach, such lectures being either created by the instructor and posted online or selected from an online repository.

While a prerecorded lecture could certainly be a podcast or other audio format, the ease with which video can be accessed and viewed today has made it so ubiquitous that the flipped model has come to be identified with it.

The notion of a flipped classroom draws on such concepts as active learning, student engagement, hybrid course design, and course podcasting. The value of a flipped class is in the repurposing of class time into a workshop where students can inquire about lecture content, test their skills in applying knowledge, and interact with one another in hands-on activities. During class sessions, instructors function as coaches or advisors, encouraging students in individual inquiry and collaborative effort”.

This definition is useful, however, you might question if the pre-session activity has to be a video. You might not want to follow this very prescriptive model. For instance, the pre-session activity could be journal review, short MCQ, social bookmarking activity or discussion board activity. The important aspect is the learner is able to draw on the pre-session activity within your classroom session.

The Centre for Teaching, at Vanderbilt University suggest there are four key elements to a flipped classroom which need to be incorporated within the learning design.

• Provide an opportunity for students to gain first exposure prior to class
• Provide an incentive for students to prepare for class
• Provide a mechanism to assess student understanding
• Provide in-class activities that focus on higher level cognitive activities

A cautionary word is highlighted in the image at the start of this post.

What is the underpinning educational context of its use?

The educational context of its use can be explored through a number of different routes. The following is not a definitive list.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

In the context of Bloom’s revised taxonomy (2001), it means students are undertaking the lower levels of cognitive work (gaining knowledge and comprehension) outside of class, and focusing on the higher forms of cognitive work (application, analysis, synthesis, and/or evaluation) in class, where they have the support of their peers and instructor. (from Vanderbilt University)



Constructivist Learning Models

The constructivist learning models are often referenced when designing approaches for students to acquire higher order learning skills.

“As long as there were people asking each other questions, we have had constructivist classrooms." (Brooks, 1999 from UCD Teaching and Learning Team)

Constructivism theory can be broadly divided into:

• Cognitive (individual) constructivism: ideas are constructed by the student through a personal process
• Social (group) constructivism: ideas are constructed by the student through interactions with others (peers, lecturers and others)

It could be suggested these two easily transfer to a flipped classroom context with the learning design incorporating the strengths of both. The Table illustrates the relative importance of the learning model with the mode of delivery.

Pre-Session	Session	Post Session
Cognitive	Cognitive	Cognitive
Social	Social	Social

The relative strength of the learning model in terms of implementation within the modes of delivery can be weaved into the learning designs. For instance, the learning design should focus on cognitive processes within the online components (pre and post), as these are more readily implemented to online learning spaces. While, the social learning processes are readily suited to the face to face teaching context.

What technologies at UCS might facilitate the flipped classroom?

There are a number of technologies available at UCS which will help facilitate a flipped classroom;

Before the session (Online)

This should encourage students to access knowledge for understanding and applying before they attend the session. This would involve completing learning tasks and activities. In terms of motivation it is useful to design the learning activity to enable monitoring. This might be through including discussion board activities or short MCQs.

• Video (including talk over powerpoints, and open education resources)
• Readings (including links, articles or student generated content)

During the Session (Classroom)

The face to face time is used for creating, evaluating and analyzing the knowledge gained from the Pre-Session Activity. The following technologies should enable discourse and debate.

• Audience Response Systems (Clickers)
• Text Walls (Twitter, Poll Everywhere)
• Bring your own devices (Student Smartphones to take and share photo or video evidence)
• Flip charts and write on walls (depending in your teaching room)
• Visualiser

After the session (Online)

This should cement the learning outcomes and bring some form of closure. This might involve you or the student making summaries.

• Course blog
• Summary recordings
• Links to further reading

How might it work in practice? Reflections on IMDSCF003

The following is based on a lecture in IMDSCF003-13S1D (Communication and Study Skills).
The assessment model is a peer assessed formative assessment task (500 words). However, given a large proportion of the students are unlikely to have any previous experienced of peer assessment the learning model needed to provide opportunities for students to apply the marking scheme to example work. This required dedicating a large proportion of the lecture to this task. To create time, the session was flipped.

Pre-Session Activity

The pre-session activity was designed to take about 1 hour. The screenshot for LearnUCS illustrates the adopted process.

There were four tasks which needed to be completed, Including, knowledge transfer tasks (video), gathering information from students (quiz) and scaffolded reading (journal articles). The emphasis of the learning model was around cognitive constructivism.

The quiz task was an open question which aimed to gather information from the student. It also acted as a monitoring tool for the lecturer.

When reflecting on the activities it could have been enhanced with more thoughtful questions around the videos. This would have provided individuals with some scaffolding in terms of what they should take from the video.

Classroom Session

A key point within a flipped classroom model is to use the material in the pre-session activity within the lecture. This is strongly associated with the need to provide feedback and motivation.

Therefore, the lecturer applied a number of approaches to encourage (sign post) the pre-session activities within their assignment and motivate engagement. For instance;

• on one slide I included the names of those who had completed the pre-activity quiz (reference a big hands up), and on the same slide the percentage of the students who hadn’t logged in (easily identified using the LearnUCS Retention Centre).
• the next slide was a selection of response to the quiz question which I discussed within the framework of the question.
• I encouraged all students to re-visit the LearnUCS module where I’d added an item which listed all the quiz responses.
• I made reference to the pre-session reading when discussing a framework for effective implementation
• It also created a significant amount of time in the lecture session for the peer assessment activity. This included, talking through the marking criteria, and group work to mark a number of exemplars (using the clickers to quantify the discussion).

Post Session

The post-session activity was to include an item in LearnUCS which summarised the group peer assessment grades and the model the grades from the lecturer.

This is a simple learning design which re-enforces the elements of an effectively flipped classroom;

• Provide an opportunity for students to gain first exposure prior to class - video and scaffold readings
• Provide an incentive for students to prepare for class - motivation through communications
• Provide a mechanism to assess student understanding - clickers and class discussion
• Provide in-class activities that focus on higher level cognitive activities - clickers and class discussion

There is also the opportunity to add a fifth element

• Provide an opportunity for activities to be closed: closed down with summary of class outcomes to allow the individual student to reflect upon

Where next for you?

You are strongly recommended to contact the Elevate Team at UCS to discuss your ideas further, and ensure you have all you need to ensure you can effectively flip your classroom. Alternatively, the Elevate Team will be running an online course around flipping your classroom, see: http://ucsdigitalliteracy.blogspot.co.uk/

References

• Educase (2012) Seven things you should know about the … Flipped Classroom, available from: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7081.pdf (accessed on 28th January, 2014)
• Centre for Teaching, Vanderbilt University, Flipping the Classroom, available from http://cft.vanderbilt.edu/teaching-guides/teaching-activities/flipping-the-classroom/ (accessed on 28th January, 2014)
• Teaching and Learning Team, University Campus Dublin, Educational Theory: Constructivism and Social Constructivism, available from: http://www.ucdoer.ie/index.php/Education_Theory/Constructivism_and_Social_Constructivism (accessed on 28th January, 2014)
• The Elevate Team, University Campus Suffolk (2012), An illustration of why and how you might flip your classroom, available from http://ucselevate.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/illustration-of-why-and-how-you-might.html (accessed on 28th January, 2014)

With Thanks

• Flipped Classroom Image: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ransomtech/7112676365/
• Blooms Revised Taxonomy: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Bloom_taxonomy.jpg

Exploring the potential use of Google Hangouts for teaching, learning and assessment.

Until recently the Elevate Team supported GoTo Meeting and GoTo Webinar for audio and video conferencing at UCS to aid in distance personal tutorial support, UCS’s Monthly open webinars (OWLET) and supporting academics who wanted to share the lecture space with external individuals or institutions.

However due to recent budget pressures and weighing up the cost against current usage, the Elevate Team have had to shift their support for web conferencing from GoTo Meeting to Google Hangouts.

The selection of Google Hangouts was not solely driven by costs. Other factors include the wide range of available features, intuitive interface and widespread adoption of Google software within the institution.

So what is Google Hangouts?

Google Hangouts is an audio and video conferencing tool available to anyone who has a Google account. If you have a Gmail, Youtube or Blogger account you will already have access to use hangouts.

Google Hangouts is split into a number of elements, including,

• Google Hangouts - Video Call
• Google Hangouts - On Air

Google Hangouts - Video Call

A Google Hangout is a private area where up to 10 people can come together, the people can all talk and see each other, while sharing desktops, collaborate on Google Drive documents and/or watching YouTube videos.

The creation of the Hangout (web conference) is easy to set-up and can be used on the majority of modern mobile devices meaning you could participate in a Google Hangout using an iPad, iPhone or any other compatible mobile device.

The use of Google Hangouts - Video Call is perfect for group work.