LearnUCS Supported Browsers

Following the recent upgrade to LearnUCS we are publishing Blackboard's minimum browser requirements.

As you will read below Microsoft's Internet Explorer 8 is no longer supported, as well as the latest releases of Internet Explorer making some LearnUCS features difficult to use.  The Elevate team recommend using one of the 3 other browsers when accessing LearnUCS.

-----------------------------------

Supported Browsers

Four primary browsers for LearnUCS current release.

Automatically Updated Channel-based Browsers

The dates listed are the latest numbered patch release dates.

• Firefox® 28 (stable channel) from Mozilla (18 March 2014)
• Firefox 24 (ESR channel) from Mozilla (17 September 2013)
• Chrome™ 34 (stable channel) from Google (8 April 2014)

Traditionally Released Browsers

The dates listed are the original release dates for general availability.

• Safari® 7 from Apple (22 October 2013)
• Safari® 6 from Apple (25 July 2012)

Safari for Windows is unsupported. Apple's continued support for this browser is unclear, and Blackboard does not test it.

• Internet Explorer® 11 from Microsoft (17 October 2013 for Windows 8.1, 7 November 2013 for Windows 7)
• Internet Explorer 10 from Microsoft (26 October 2012 for Windows 8, 26 February 2013 for Windows 7)
• Internet Explorer 9 from Microsoft (14 March 2011)

Some configuration options for Internet Explorer might make some features of Blackboard Learn difficult to use. To learn more, see Internet Explorer Security Zones and Compatibility View topic in this section.

-----------------------------------

Please see this link for further information.

e-submission Review at UCS: Electronic Management of Assignments (EMA): Draft Report

The following is a draft for consultation and will be presented at the next AMC meeting. If you have any comments or observations, please contact Andy Ramsden (a.ramsden@ucs.ac.uk)

• Andy Ramsden (e-Learning Development Manager, UCS)
• 7th July, 2014

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the following people for their active role in the Task and Finish Group. Without their input it would have been a longer, harder journey.

• Aaron Burrell
• Faith Hicks
• Matt Hirst

Executive Summary

The aim of this review was to answer the following questions, how can we enhance the workflow of EMA at UCS? How can we increase adoption of good practice across the institution?

The discussion highlighted EMA is viewed positively by all stakeholders. There are a number of recommendations to enhance the effective implementation across UCS. These recommendations have been appropriately resourced and prioritised.

Background

The Review of e-Submission, e-Grading and e-Return paper was presented to the AMC meeting in March 2014. The paper proposed given there has been a gradual roll-out and take up of electronic processes available to support online submission, grading and return across UCS, and the last review was undertaken in 2011/12, it would be appropriate and timely to undertake another review.

The aim of this review was to answer the following questions, how can we enhance the workflow of EMA at UCS? How can we increase adoption of good practice?

Methodology

The Task & Finish Group - comprised of:

• Aaron Burrell - Elevate Team
• Faith Hicks - Academic Services
• Matt Hirst - Academic Services
• Andy Ramsden (Chair) - Elevate Team

The Task and Finish Group identified a number of key stakeholders to approach. These included:

• Student (n=1) Semi structured interview and desk study from Course Reports
• Lecturers (n=17 (2 from Otley)) - semi structured interviews (1-2-1)
• Course Admins (n=4) - focus group 
• Health & Safety (n=1) - email correspondence
• IT Services Helpdesk (n=1) - email correspondence 
• Infozone Manager (n=1) - semi structured interview 
• Total (n=25)

The Heads of Department were asked to recommend staff to participate.

The data (interviews, focus groups and email correspondence was undertaken during May & June 2014.

As would be expected from this approach, a number of caveats exist:

• Small sample size means it is not a significant sample
• Sample bias as the Task & Finish Group selected the people to interview
• Interview bias as “they may say what they think we want to here, not what they actually think”

Discussion

The original workflow has been implemented in a variety of models at UCS. The analysis identified a lot of positive feedback for benefits of EMA across all stakeholders at UCS. The Students commented about the ease of submission, and no printing costs. While Course Admins identified efficiency gains and easier monitoring, and Lecturers discussed the benefits of streamlining the marking and feedback cycle.

How can we improve the workflow?

Some people were not aware of the workflow. However, the principle of being explicit about roles and responsibilities was positively received across the stakeholders.

The latest iteration of the workflow is available below.

Some of the suggested enhancements were:

• ensure a meetings are undertaken between the course team and the course administrator to agree who is responsible for the various parts.
• clear up misunderstandings between ratified and unratified grades for students
• include external examiners within the process, and ensure they are supported
• re-design the workflow to accommodate the enhancements to the LearnUCS software.

There were a number of requests for software improvements. The Elevate Team will continue to monitor enhancements in the Blackboard software and feed these back the UCS community.

How can we support the implementation of the workflow?

A consistent message emerged from all the stakeholders around needing clarity of “who is responsible for managing portals?” This implies the current workflow has not embedded across all the course teams, and we need an effective marketing and communication strategy aimed at all stakeholders.

Hardware

A common thread throughout the staff discussions were issues around the required hardware and software to complete the e-grading and e-return. Staff did not find the current arrangement of workstations with small monitors in open planned offices conducive to the process. In addition, a number of concerns were raised around health issues associated with spending long periods of time marking online, and the frustrations of excessive scrolling due to small monitors.

Consistency

Lecturers

1. A few issues raised the need for consistency across Departmental implementations. There existed significant differences in practice.
2. A question asked by some was, "what does good practice look like? What should I be aiming towards?"

Course Administrators

1. They acknowledged a variety of approaches were adopted by different course administrators. They saw an opportunity to learn from each other, and move to a more consistent implementation.
2. More consistency across UCS with respect to the management of extensions
3. More effective and efficient support for External Examiners
4. More support sessions for academic staff around inline grading (e-grading, e-feedback)

Student Perspective

1. Clearer guidance on who to contact with respect to availability or issues with the submission portals.
2. Earlier communication if there is an issue with the format of the submitted file.
3. Encourage consistency within course teams on when and how EMA is used
4. Simplify the need to manage all the other files (cover sheets, marking grids) which need to be submitted with the assignment

System Integration

1. The Course Admins discussed if there existed opportunities to integrate the Student Record System (SITS) with LearnUCS. The hope was for two integration. For instance, the automatic creation of online submission portals based on assessment diets from SITS, and the push of appropriate and selected data from LearnUCS gradebook into SITS.

Recommendations

The recommendations have been organised through a MoSCoW analysis.

MUST

1. Creation of a dedicated EMA support area for Staff and Students to support and inform them of the process. This will be linked to from each LearnUCS course, and the UCS Assignment Toolkit [Owner: Elevate (Aaron) - By: July 2014]
2. Redesign the submission portal to improve access to FAQs, links to academic skills support, clearly identify people / roles who support the process, and make this support material multimedia rich with screencasts [Owner: Elevate (Aaron) & Acad Services (Matt) - By: July 2014]
3. Provide student focussed posters at key times of the year within student learning spaces which focus on how to submit work and access feedback. [Owner: Elevate (Aaron) & Acad Services (Matt) - By: December Campaign]
4. Provide awareness raising posters (lecturer audience) at key times of the year, distributed within staff spaces and offices which focus on the EMA workflow, the benefits, where material resides and contact names [Owner: Elevate (Aaron) & Acad Services (Matt) - By: December Campaign]
5. Improve the communications with new lecturers as part of their induction. Provide a clear and consistent message around talking to their course administrator about the process. [Owner: Elevate (Andy) & Acad Services (Matt) - By: July & Ongoing]
6. Run training sessions twice a year for course admins to ensure they have collective ownership the emerging good practice around EMA. Create regular bulletins. [Owner: Elevate (Aaron) & Acad Services (Matt) - By: July 2014 & December 2014]
7. Develop online guidance for lecturers on the common issues and questions. Ensure this is easily accessible for lecturers in LearnUCS when they are marking. [Owner: Elevate (Aaron) & Acad Services (Matt) - By: July 2014]
8. Be more explicit about the available support and advice on Health and Safety. Include in Online Support Material [Owner: Elevate (Andy) - By: October 2014]
9. Group meet to review implementation plan, and write a new short term plan for Jan to June 2015 [Owner: Elevate (Andy) - By: December 2014]
10. Dissemination strategy, including Meetings (AMC, LTAG, Faculty), MyUCS Announcements [Owner: Elevate (Andy) - By: Sept - Nov 2014]

SHOULD

1. Look at opportunities to create e-grading and e-feedback dedicated workstations or rooms. These would include machines with large monitors, and meet the minimum browser requirements. [Owner: Elevate (Andy) - By: ongoing]
2. Train all course administrators on the functionality of the inline grading tool, and collectively author FAQs from the lecturer and student perspective [Owner: Elevate (Aaron) & Acad Services (Matt) - By: October 2014]
3. Explore file conversion software for course admins [Owner: Elevate (Aaron) & IT Services - By: October 2014]
4. Blog post to engage in the wider UCS discussions around browsers, in particular issues around the performance of LearnUCS in Internet Explorer [Owner: Elevate (Aaron) - By: October 2014]
5. Explore the current situation with respect to SITS and LearnUCS integration [Owner: Elevate (Aaron) - By: October 2014]

COULD

WON’T

1. Pay for Blackboard bespoke developments for SITS integration, and Email Receipts

Image Source: http://www.azproarte.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Online-submission.jpg

LearnUCS Upgrade - Complete

The LearnUCS upgrade is complete and login is now active again.

As will all upgrades we have tested the site as much as possible and believe the system is working as expected. If you do find any issues please contact the Elevate Team at elevate@ucs.ac.uk

Below are a number of changes that you may notice when using the system:

Staff and Student - Profiles

If you have uploaded a profile photograph or connected LearnUCS to Twitter or Facebook you will need to agree to a new set of terms and conditions for Blackboard and their Cloud Profiles.
This is a very simple process and only takes a few minutes. You need to access your profile by clicking the dashboard button, top right of your screen, where you would normally see your profile picture, as seen below highlighted in red:

Once you click the profile you will see the screen below, this is where the new terms and conditions are:

When you have agreed to the terms and conditions, your profile will reconnect to the one previously setup.

Student - Assignment Submission

There have been a couple of changes in the upgrade that you may notice, the layout of the submission screen has slightly changed, with the grades 'points possible' and the due date being boxed near the top.

New functionality now means that all work is directly submitted to SafeAssign, the plagiarism checking tool used at UCS.  You will notice a new tick box asking you to agree to submit your work to the 'Global Reference Database'.  

Agreeing to this is in your benefit.  It means that if you agree, a copy of your work is held securely in a database.  That all future work from any worldwide University/College using SafeAssign is then checked against, to make sure your work hasn't been copied.

Below is an example of a new submission page, showing the new location for the points possible and due date, as well as the agreement for SafeAssign's Global Reference Database.

Staff - SafeAssign

As above, SafeAssign is now fully integrated into the Submission process.  You are now able to see the plagiarism score in the GradeCentre's Inline Grading view, as shown below:

Please see links below for additional info on some new grading features:

The latest version will provide some enhanced functionality around common tasks, often requested by Staff and Students. These include:

• Student Preview - An actual student account created on the fly when required
• Anonymous and Delegated Grading
• Deeper SafeAssign Integration

LearnUCS Upgrade - Testing Phase

We are pleased to be able to announce that phase 1 of the upgrade has completed.

This now means we can move to phase 2, the testing phase. The Elevate team are currently testing the upgrade to make sure the system is responding as expected.

Phase 3 will be testing the new features, ready for allowing users back on to the system.

Check back later this afternoon for further updates.

LearnUCS Summer Upgrade Underway

The LearnUCS upgrade has started, login access has been removed, both directly into LearnUCS and from MyUCS.

We will be updating this bog as the upgrade progresses, please check back Saturday afternoon for more updates.

Great Yarmouth: HE Professional Discussion Day

The Elevate Team ran a two hour discussion as part of Great Yarmouth College's "HE Professional Discussion" day on the 16th July.

The slides are available below. The intention was to start lots of conversations around current and potential use of technology enhanced learning within their course design. The focus was to pitch it around how people could discover and share ideas. Therefore, we spent time unpacking support routes and communities of practice, fed by information from the Elevate Team blog.

From my perspective the session went very well, we managed to surface lots of practice which was currently going on across the course teams, and explore how we could implement a very straight forward learning design based on the flipped classroom model.

The learning model seemed to find lots of traction within the group (unless they were agreeing in the hope I'd go away). We worked through:

1. tweaking the menu on LearnUCS so it is really clear what students need to do (so lots of task 1, task 2).
2. including clear instructions at the start of each task
3. embedding a youTube video (which they might create as a talk over powerpoint) or a twitter discover and share activity
4. followed by a short quiz which asks questions about the embedded activity, including a free text question
5. the final activity (post taught session) was to use a course blog to capture what key concepts the student took from the session (similar to a two minute essay)

The discussion then shifted to using tools and strategies to help ensure this became effective. Including the effective use of the retention centre to help communications, rubrics to speed up feedback, and how to use pre-session activity could be embedded with the taught session.

The session was left where we would follow up at start of next academic year, unless we could help over the summer.

If you'd like a similar session with your course team, Department of Learning Network, then email the elevate team (elevate@ucs.ac.uk)

Image Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Yarmouth

Issuing Open Badges at UCS - Where are we?

After the development and completion of the Open Badges Generator (http://goo.gl/Vj0ymZ) we trialled the use of open badges at various events over the last few weeks here at UCS. These included the annual Learning and Teaching Day, AMC Development Day and the Research Colloquium as well as badges for attendees to our Digital Literacy Programme courses.

The objectives needed to obtain the event badges were not to simply turn up, but to submit a short (~150 words) reflective piece reflecting on a key message that you had taken away from the event or workshop and how you could use that in your everyday work. This method also helps to provide event organisers with a source of feedback.

These reflections were captured using a Google Form and attendees were given two weeks to submit the form.

After the two weeks had past, a member of the Elevate Team would simply open the Open Badge Issuer selecting the correct badge and using the form information to issue badges to those who submitted their reflections.

We issued 41 badges in total over the various events and workshops.

Here is a brief overview of the process:

1. Initial meeting with event/workshop organiser explaining 'What are Open Badges' and how they could be used for their sessions - 15m
2. Create Google Form (Name, email address, reflection) and send link to organiser- 5m
3. After event, Issue badges - ~30s per response

We have a main open badges page which can be found using the link below which details how we are using Open Badges at UCS.

http://www.ucs.ac.uk/openbadge/How-are-we-using-open-badges-at-UCS.aspx

Looking back over the whole process it's clear to see that for quite a significant result, I.e issuing an Open Badge, the process it self was very administration light.

The only issue we had with this process was one recipient having issues logging into their Mozilla Backpack, the issue was resolved by getting the recipient to use a different browser such as Mozilla FireFox or Google Chrome rather than Internet Explorer.

Each badge that got issued points to a 'Criteria' page on the UCS website where information about the badge is stored. 

Some questions for future use have arisen from the recent use of badges for these events. These include:

• Does there need to be a review of the quality of reflections before issuing of badges and if so, who would do this?
• A need to revoke or expire badges if the badge is for a re-occurring event or CPD which continually needs updating.

The expiring of badges is on the development list for our next sprint with this project. We will also look at scripting in some unique identifiers for each badge to help us track and maintain a clean and error free database. 

With word spreading and interest climbing for the use of Open Badges for face to face workshops and events, scripting in some sort of analytics would help us track 'number of badges issued' for individual events/workshops.

If you are a member of staff at UCS and would like to know more about Open Badges or how you could use them, feel free to contact us :)