Inspiring solutions or square pegs in round holes?

1. HEA Learning & Teaching Conference 2009 Inspiringsolutions or square pegs in round holes? Critical reflections on the use of e-learning to support undergraduate dissertations in Archaeology Kevin Kuykendall & Lorraine Seymour | University of Sheffield | 01.07.2009

2. Summary Previous context Academic & e-learning context E- learning for dissertation support Results Lessons learnt Questions

3. In the beginning… • Dissertation performance • Internal & external moderation • Limited approaches • Poor self-evaluation • Restricted interpretative potential • Low use of taught or assessed research skills • Lack of project experience • Dissertation weighting • 40 out of 120 credits • L3 double weighted

4. In the beginning… • Student performance limited despite • Student calibre • Supervision • Level 2 modules • Feasibility Study

5. Academic & e-learning context • Full teaching & administration load for staff • Materials / Text / Theoretical Approaches + dual honours • Advance of e-learning & social networking • Networked technologies (Blackboard / Web CT) • Track-record of IBL, CILASS project • Use of personal tutor system to manage PDP • Strong tradition of staff involvement

6. Elearning for dissertation support Networked, IBL-based learning programme • Development, formative feedback & transferable skills • CILASS funded • Non-credited – curriculum limits/staff workload • Operates with networked learning technology (Blackboard / Web CT) • IBL exercises & resources • Monitoring & feedback via Personal Tutor system

7. Networked Inquiry Based Learning Programme Student led inquiry Networked learning (Web CT) Questions / subject knowledge Guidance / resources Exercises Formative feedback • Enhanced skill Level 2 & 3 Modules Dissertation Supervisors Peers Personal Tutors Research Design Milestones Evidence gathering Evaluation Analysis & presentation

9. Elearning for dissertation support • 1. Research design question • Submit answers to the following: (please be as specific as possible) • What is your proposed dissertation question? • What are the aims of your dissertation? • Which resources will you use to address them?

10. Results - Implementation • Suitability of networked technology (Blackboard / Web CT) • Highly centralised system • Small modules, few instructors • No functionality for organising large cohorts of staff & individually assessed students • No messaging staff – student emails / SMS • High time & specialist skill requirements • Develop, manage & monitor an engaging & useful site • Staff access to assessments / provision of feedback • Assessors search for ‘needle in haystack’ • Tutors not updated that submission delivered • Students not updated on feedback

11. Results - Responses

12. Results - Responses Both students and staff seem to have responded to the e-learning platform in similar ways – 3 user groups based on frequency

13. Results - Responses • Student focus groups • Not accredited so why bother? • Information and links were useful but I’m a history student. • I like a web account where I can manage my project . • We didn’t know where to start with a discussion board. • My dissertation is field based . I don’t understand how this will help? • The research design exercise was way earlier than our feasibility study. • Its not important yet, the dissertation isn’t handed in until the end and I had loads of other assignments that count towards my marks this year.

14. Results - Responses • Staff feedback • ‘Staff do not have enough time. No additional scheme is needed. • ‘Good students can learn from example & you will always get bad students’ • ‘More formative assessment & feedback is clearly required’ • ‘Web CT is too slow, I have to hunt down all of my students and I’m just not going to do it’ • ‘Students are already over-assessed’

15. Results - FS & D marks Mode for MOLE users in higher mark range? MOLE mean = 60% All mean = 61% Bimodal (?), but higher proportion of MOLE users in higher mark range? MOLE mean = 68% All mean = 67%

16. Lessons learnt • Students will not be motivated by improvement alone • Degree accreditation required – interim assessment: compulsory submission? Penalty-based mark? • Clearer & more regular communication regarding requirements & mark value (40 credits – double weighted)  impact • Assessment timing and delivery cannot be ‘bolted on’ to existing Personal Tutor systems or course programmes • Careful re-design and integration of specifically customised systems at core of curriculum  further development

17. Lessons learnt • Traditional use of networked learning systems is unsuitable for dissertations • Customised approach required • harnessing most advantageous technology + successful ‘real world’ networks (e.g. group sessions, research networks) • Staff support / apathy / resistance • Success rests on agreed and frequently revisited guidelines (single + dual hons). • Realities of staff teaching / research balance (workload) • Message to students

18. Questions? What is the right balance between e-learning and more traditional methods (e.g., library work)? (learning tools; resources; student engagement) How do we design a centralised support programme that is balanced with diverse & individualised supervisor-student dynamics? (organisation of programme; integration with research process; supervisor & student engagement; resistance).

19. Acknowledgements Special thanks to: • CILASS, Phil Levy, Pamela McKinney, LETS, Paul Wigfield, Alison Bestwick, John Barrett, Mike Charles, Andrew Chamberlain, Peter Day , Robin Dennell, Glynis Jones & student of the University of Sheffield