Xerte upgrade

Xerte logo

Xerte, the online platform which allows Durham staff and students to create multi-media, interactive learning objects, has recently been upgraded to the latest version. The upgrade fixes a number of bugs and offers the following new features:

 ‘Flash cards’ page type: help students learn a language or remember terminology by creating flash cards–use text only or combine text and images.

‘Word search’ page type: define your own words to create a search game that changes every time.

SCORM tracking in duo: upload Xerte projects to duo to record user progress and scores with increased accuracy.

Hiding pages: hide pages from users without deleting them from your project.

If you’re interested in getting started with Xerte, come along to the Creating interactive content with Xerte workshop on 13 December 2017.

We provide more information on Xerte, plus how-to guides and videos, on our Xerte Product page.

 

Contract Cheating

Several members of the LTT attended the 2017 Academic Integrity Summit last week – an event hosted by Turnitin. One of the “hot topics” was contract cheating (a term that also covers activities such as ghost-writing and the use of essay mills). This was very timely given the recent publication of advice from the QAA and the NUS.

The term “contract cheating” is used to cover a spectrum of activities – from swapping essays with friends, through to commissioning people to write an essay or computer practical for you – in fact any activity where the student benefits from it, even if actual money doesn’t change hands. The University takes a very dim view of such activity – penalties range from losing marks to failing the entire module – see the Learning & Teaching Handbook.

Phil Newton and Michael Draper have come up with this formal definition of contract cheating:

a basic relationship between three actors; a student, their university, and a third party who completes assessments for the former to be submitted to the latter, but whose input is not permitted. ‘Completes’ in this case means that the third party makes a contribution which results in reasonable doubt as to whose work the assessment represents.

In November 2014, reporters from the Sydney Herald managed to hack into a contract cheating site and obtain the names of thousands of students, their university and the essay title. This resulted in a huge scandal and Australian Universities were forced to confront the ugly truth that contract cheating was happening at their institution. This led to the development policies and procedures to respond to this threat.

contract cheating and assessment

In a subsequent study of over 14,000 HE students in Australia – contract cheating and assessment design – 6% of all students admitted some form of cheating activity. Suitably robust comparative figures for the UK are not available, but staff – try googling your module code and essay titles and see what turns up…

Worryingly the vast majority of students in the survey (“cheaters” and “non-cheaters” alike) expressed a low level of concern about this – seeing it as a “victimless crime”. This is very different to the view of staff, who are very concerned about this activity and the risk it poses to academic integrity – the foundation of all our teaching and research activities. The challenge is how to change the perception amongst students.

Can contract cheating be detected? Well, contract-cheating providers have no morals, and there are documented cases of them informing universities of usage of their site if students don’t pay the bill on time! Also their focus is more on money-making than security, so as the Sydney Herald case shows, it is easy enough to obtain information about the people using the sites (often little more than a customised WordPress blog). The challenge for automated detection at the time of submission is that these essays (or at least the expensive ones) are new works, so will not flag up as plagiarised. Instead systems need to look at changes in writing style, sentence length,  examine the document meta data, and possibly perform some form of stylistic analysis. This is where having a bank of submissions from the same person helps. Technical solutions are currently being tested and when available it will be possible to apply them to the back catalogue – so cheaters be warned!

If you want to know more have a look at this post from academic integrity expert Prof Phil Newton at Swansea University

Cover photo shared under a CC0 license by Sander Smeeks at unsplash

Integrated Online Training

One feature we will be rolling out after the upgrade (probably a couple of weeks later) is an integration that facilitates a new approach to online training.

Before the Upgrade

At present many online training courses are hosted on duo (from topics as diverse as Fire Safety to Consent Matters) but it can be hard to find them and ensure that details of any activity on these courses is fed back to other University systems. This is especially important for training where there may be a legal requirement to show that people have received and completed appropriate training (e.g. the Fire Safety example). Depending on your role in duo and which portal modules you have chosen to display on your home page, you may see links such as these which all point at online training courses:

A sample of current portal modules displaying links to training courses on duo

Details of these online courses were only available in duo, meaning that not as many people knew about them as we would like. There are catalogue tools built into duo designed to help you search for courses, but they are not capable of the rich level of filtering by role/job that is needed for this task – e.g. determine what training a third year Biology student who also works in the College bar first of all needs to take, then which other courses are recommended and finally what other courses are available for them to take if they want. To be fair to Blackboard that is not a surprise – it is designed to be a learning management system not a dedicated training management system.

Immediately after the upgrade

After the 2017 duo upgrade in September, all these training-related portal modules are going to be moved to a new dedicated Training tab. This is an interim arrangement until the full integrated training system is rolled out (that requires some final testing of changes to both sides – to duo and the Training Course Booking System (TCBS).

A new (interim) Training tab
As a short term measure to ensure continued access, look for these modules on a new Training tab

There might be some items listed as online training that need moved to become normal courses – e.g. Special Department-wide sites on duo. Members of the LTT are working on that.

By the start of the new academic year

Longer term, the training tab will show a special training tab interface (optimised for mobile devices). When it is first opened it will show you a list of the online training courses that you are enrolled on as a student:

A list showing your online training courses enrolments.

As this list may get quite long there is an easy way to filter the results displayed – by typing into the Search box displayed immediately above the list.

The opened drawer – open and close it using the button at the top right

If you open the side panel at the right of the screen, you can access your current training record, showing every online and face-to-face training course that you have completed at the University (assuming it stores this fact in the TCBS). There is also a link to the TCBS allowing you to search for more courses – note that the catalogue will show online as well as face-to-face courses. These include direct links to automatically enrol you onto the duo course (more on that in a minute). Longer term we’d like this link to automatically sign you in, but that requires some recoding of the current TCBS authentication framework.

The button is only shown if it applies

If you teach on an online training course on duo (i.e. hold an Instructor/Leader role) then there is another button displayed that shows you a list of these courses separately, so it is clear which are training courses you need to complete as a student, and which are the ones that you are designing for others.

Back to duoClicking the home icon at the top left of the screen returns you to the normal duo tabs.

One of the best features of this new integration is that it supports the ability to create direct links to any online training course on duo. These can be accessed from

  • another course in duo (perhaps suggesting related courses which cover a topic in more detail)
  • the catalogue entry in the TCBS
  • a web page
  • an email

In each case they behave the same:

  1. When you click on the link you are taken to duo.
  2. If you are not currently logged in you will be asked to log in.
    login prompt
  3. If you are already enrolled on the course, then you are taken directly to it and can access the content without further ado.
  4. If you are not, then you see a page which invites you to join the course, displaying more information about it (so you are sure this is the link you meant to click on).
    Confirmation page
  5. If you choose to join the course, then you are added and can access the content straight away, without the need for any approval by the staff who wrote it.
  6. Some courses also support self-service removal – e.g. if you later decide that this is not the course for you, then you can remove yourself from it (though note anything you did on the course – including records of any training passed will be deleted).
    Opening the course

Scores showing that you have passed the online training will be fed from duo automatically to the TCBS (not instantly, but probably each night). This will mean that you (and appropriate line managers/supervisors) will be able to see your achievements from the training record in the TCBS.

We hope this will provide a simpler, more fluid training experience for staff and students.

Removing Social Spaces

All the spaces at Durham
It was accessed via My Blackboard

Around 2013, Blackboard introduced a feature called Social Spaces that was part of a suite of cloud tools. You probably haven’t heard about it, let alone used it. To access it you clicked the bottom icon in the list of tools displayed in the My Blackboard tool on duo (shown to the right).

It opened up a range of online spaces where you could share thoughts with others – possibly invitation only (e.g. a University society), across Durham, or even with Blackboard users across the globe. As part of the upgrade planning, we revisited Durham’s list of spaces (note any hidden spaces are not shown here):

All the spaces at Durham

When we looked into the contents of these spaces there was very little going on. This screenshot shows one of the more used sites – which is just a monologue from me a few years back:

A series of posts with no replies

Student feedback has been very clear = turn off features that are not needed, keep the interface simple. In light of that, consider it done – the Social Spaces feature will be turned off as part of the upgrade in September.

More about the 2017 upgrade

Developing Students as Peer Reviewers at Durham University

students working together at computer

Ross Parker speaks to Rachel Simpson and Cath Reading

Students studying Education at Durham University are learning to become peer reviewers, providing formative feedback on the work of their peers. This can lead to greater levels of success, both in student’s academic and professional lives.

In this post I’ll explain how peer review was introduced in this course, the impact it’s made so far and also share some of the feedback from students involved in the project.

students working together at computer

About the Project

Lecturers Rachel Simpson and Cath Reading set about introducing peer review in the 2016-17 academic year. Their focus was to see if it could be used as a mechanism to help students develop graduate attributes and life-long learning skills. The students involved in this action research project were 80 level one students studying BA Primary Education.

For clarity, the focus of this project was peer feedback: students were required to give feedback to each other, but not grade the work of their peers. The latter is another concept: peer assessment.

Putting Peer Review into Practice

To introduce the concept of peer review, Rachel and Cath secured the services of Professor David Nicol, a leading researcher in the field. In his keynote lecture, Professor Nicol discussed how by engaging in peer review, students can develop higher-level skills such as critical thinking, judgment, and autonomy.

Rachel and Cath used Nicol’s Principles of good peer review practice as a framework to scaffold tasks throughout the year. The first task required students to review the work of previous students, which had been anonymised. This gave students the opportunity to review the work of others but without the added worry over what a peer might think – a concern raised by students in an early questionnaire. Details of how Cath and Rachel captured students’ attitudes towards peer review is discussed later in this article.

The main project activity was the Peer Review Block Task. This required each student to capture an audio recording of themselves teaching a short science activity in their respective placement schools. This recording would then be used for both self-review as well as peer review.

The scaffolded nature of the peer review tasks aimed for deeper student engagement as the year progressed. Therefore, by this final task, the students were able to set their own assessment criteria, conducted a self-review and were encouraged to engage in a dialogue with their peers to evaluate the feedback they had received. This process is outlined below in five carefully scaffolded activities:

  1. Decide review criteria
  2. Self-review
  3. Peer-review
  4. Peer-peer tutorial (discussing similar and different points)
  5. Self-reflection after peer-review – establishing future targets

You can view the full peer review block task here.

How did students feel about peer review?

Before any activities were introduced, students were asked about their feelings towards the concept of peer review. Just over half of the group’s responses were negative, stating a number of concerns about the process. This ranged from anxiety over criticising the work of their peers to fears of potential plagiarism. There was also some confusion as to why they were being asked to review the work of their peers – students (at least initially) saw this as the responsibility of the teacher. This was evident in the response of a student, who had first been introduced to peer review during their A-Levels.

“At [the] risk of sounding ‘lazy’ I didn’t feel it was fair that I would have to write my essay and then have to mark it, and another’s work, as well – it seemed unfair.” Anonymous.

After their first peer review task, students were asked whether they found the activity helpful or not, using criteria developed by Cath Reading. Of the students questioned, 88% said it was beneficial receiving reviews. However, only 12% of students identified benefits with reviewing the work of others. They didn’t see how reviewing the work of a peer was helping them; it was just something they were required to do so they all received feedback.

Mid-way through the year when visiting students at their placement schools, Rachel reported that opinions towards peer review had begun to change. When interviewed by Rachel, students reported that peer review was helping them to self-regulate their learning, be more effective communicators, and better understand quality in academic work.

After the final Peer Review Block Task students were asked what they found most useful; giving feedback, receiving feedback or both? The most popular answer was to give feedback. So, what caused this change in students’ perception of peer review from the feedback gathered at the start of the year?

As students got more experience of critically evaluating the work of their peers, they started to see how this was having a positive impact on their own learning. Some students reported working to improve their own understanding of taught materials before they felt ready to critically evaluate the work of their peers. Students also developed the ability to make objective judgments about academic work, by engaging with the assessment criteria. By the end of the year, 100% of comments about the peer review process was positive.

Challenges with Peer Review

Although the peer review project was ultimately well received by students, Rachel and Cath identified a number of challenges that remain. The first of these is students require secure subject knowledge in order to effectively critique the work of a peer. Secondly, they found that students would still seek the tutor’s verification of their peer reviews. There were also students who queried the process of peer review and wanted to see evidence of its effectiveness. A previous study into the effectiveness of peer review is discussed in the article ‘Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective’  (Nicol, Thomson & Breslin, 2013).

Next Steps

Cath and Rachel will be continuing their work to develop peer review skills with this cohort of students throughout their second year. The process will start again with first year BA Primary Education students in October 2017.

Improved Consistency for Kaltura Users

image of person using laptop and smart phone

Over the past few months, you may have experienced some difficulties playing Kaltura videos on your Mac, iPad or iPhone, with the following error message displayed:

“It seems your browser is blocking 3rd party session cookies which are required for the Kaltura application. To resolve this issue, please update your settings to allow 3rd party cookies.”

This issue was caused by an update to Safari.  We’ve worked with Kaltura and CIS staff from the systems group and are pleased to report that this issue has been fixed – Kaltura videos now play as expected on all common browsers and devices.

Is using a laptop to take notes in a lecture a bad idea?

laptops vs notes

This week members of the LTT discussed a series of papers which compared students’ understanding of lectures (and in some case final grades) comparing those who took notes on paper against those who used laptops (interesting there was little reference to mobile devices in the papers). The study show that if the students using computers try and record the lectures verbatim, then their retention and comprehension is poorer than those who take abbreviated notes. This affect appears most marked in male students, particularly those struggling to master the concepts.  Interestingly in one study where tablets were used (Mueller & Oppenheimer, 2017) where students also used a stylus to write notes freehand, their results were found to be as good as those of students who took hand-written notes.

These papers raised a lot of questions : What about students whose note-taking doesn’t stop after the class – if they later summarise their electronic notes, or perhaps convert them into a mind-map – what affect does this have? What about classes where lecture capture is used, or when notes supplied in advance? Can the observed difference be reduced or even reversed, if students are taught different ways of taking notes electronically? Who should teach students this? Are there things that lecturers can do to help students understand what note-taking strategy might work in their classes?

Plenty to mull over!

We looked at:

May C (2014) “A learning secret: don’t take notes with a laptop” Scientific American, 3rd June 2014.
Available at  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-learning-secret-don-t-take-notes-with-a-laptop/

Mueller PA & Oppenheimer DM (2017) “Technology and note-taking in the classroom, boardroom, hospital room, and courtroom” Trends in Neuroscience and Education 5(3) pp 139-145
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tine.2016.06.002

Mueller PA & Oppenheimer DM (2015) “The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard: Advantages of Longhand Over Laptop Note Taking” Psychological Science 25(6) pp 1159-1168
Available at: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797614524581

Patterson RW & Patterson RM (2017) “Computers and productivity: Evidence from laptop use in the college classroom” Economics of Education Review, 57 pp 66-79.
Available at  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.02.004

Background image credit: Galymzhan Abdulgalimov shared via unsplash https://unsplash.com/photos/ICW6QYOcdlg

New Video Recording Tool for duo

Kaltura CaptureSpace Lite Home Screen

You can now make video recordings from your desktop and upload them directly to a duo Course. Kaltura’s CaptureSpace Lite desktop recorder allows you to create videos that include your computer screen, webcam and audio.

Using CaptureSpace Lite

You can use CaptureSpace Lite to:

  • Record your voice and/or video over a presentation
  • Create a welcome video
  • Create an overview of your duo Course
  • Record a software or lab demonstration
  • Provide audio/video feedback synchronised with student work

You can download CaptureSpace Lite from the duo Home page and install it on both Mac and PC. You are free to install it on your own computer.

If you have any queries about using CaptureSpace Lite, you can contact the LTT by email at itservicedesk@durham.ac.uk.