Lessons Learnt from Implementing the Blackboard Content System Dr Barbara Newland Manager of Educational Development Services, Bournemouth University Maria-Christiana

Lessons Learnt from Implementing theBlackboard Content System

Dr Barbara NewlandManager of Educational Development Services, Bournemouth University

Maria-Christiana Papaefthimioue-Learning Manager, Reading University

Prof Gunter SaundersDirector of Online Learning Development, Westminster University

Federica OradiniLearning Technologist, Westminster University

Lessons Learnt from Implementing

the Blackboard Content System

Overview

To compare the experiences and lessons learnt through the implementation of the Content System (CS) at Bournemouth, Reading and Westminster Universities

Our implementation aims are to:– enhance teaching and learning– increase student flexibility in provision and access to information– fulfil UK government directives

This presentation will focus on how:– e-Reserves are being used to access digitised short loan library materials– development and assessment of students e-portfolios – the implementation is project managed

It is not technically focussed but policy and processes so if not for you then …We will include time for discussions within the session



Location – Bournemouth/Reading/Westminster



Student and Staff Numbers

Bournemouth Reading Westminster

STUDENTS

- Undergraduates 13,000 11,200 16,500

- Postgraduates 2,000 6,300 5,500

STAFF

- Academic 650 2,000 1,100

- Support 700 850 870

CS Tools at Bournemouth

CS Areas Status Detail

My Content Staff only

Course Content xInstitution Content Pilot areas

Library Content Staff only

Portfolios Not yet promoted

Learning Objects x Not yet available



Bournemouth University

• Great change with a new VC, new PVCs and 3 (out of 6 Schools) have new Heads

• New Corporate Plan 2006 - 2012: “Our student-centred learning environment emphasises both intellectual achievement and employability”

• IT has split from Academic Services• Educational Development Support (EDS)

support learning and teaching• Library – 60% budget on e-resources• Bb Basic since 2002 and Academic Suite 2006

and moving from 4 CMS to 1 (use CS not LS)



e-Reserves - Bournemouth

Context1. reading lists at unit/course level

2. exam papers at unit/course level

3. short loan




Process of implementation• Major change to Copyright Licensing

Agreement (CLA)• Academics request items to be scanned and

added to e-Reserves by the Librarians who inform academic when it is there so they can make a link to it

• Library analyses high use items




Pedagogical implications• Aim to encourage students to read quality

e-resources to inform their study • Simultaneous access to digitised materials

whereas previously only one user at a time e.g. group work using Web 2.0 technologies

• Aim to encourage wider reading beyond a Google search

• eRes – Innovative E-learning with E-resources (Pathfinder project) http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/eds/eres/



Institution Content -BU

• My Content – not use LS

• Institution– Share across university– Working area for schools

• Joint Academic Coding System (JACS) – UCAS - central organisation that processes

applications for full-time undergraduate courses at UK universities and colleges and UK Higher Education Statistical Agency



e-Reserves – Lessons Learnt

• Work closely with the library• Provide processes that are easy for academic

to use with quick response time• Employ students over the summer to do

repetitive work• File size and accessibility of scanned resources• CLA licence limitations – can only digitise a

chapter of UK published book we hold in stock or copyright cleared Inter-Library Loans (ILL).



University of Westminster

• Teaching led with a strong emphasis on knowledge transfer and work with industry

• New VC starting in August 2007

• New teaching and learning committee

• Blended learning an identified priority

• Single institutional VLE used for 5 years

• Piloting social networking alongside Bb



CS Tools at Westminster

CMS Areas Status Detail (restricted to pilots)

My Content Staff and students

Course Content Staff

Institution Content Staff and students

Library Content x

Portfolios Staff and Students

Learning Objects x



e-Portfolios for PDP

An overview of student and staff perceptions across subject areas at the University of Westminster



Background - Westminster

• Blackboard been used for 5 years• 15 study skills type modules across UG levels• ~2000 students and 25 staff involved • All experiencing e-Portfolios for the first time• All portfolios were assessed• 250 students completed a

questionnaire together withall staff involved



e-Portfolios Across Subjects



Students

• From 7 subject areas

• Majority IT literate - 75% said were confident with prior skills

• Most work at home 63%, at university 37%

• Generally positive about their e-portfolio.

Opportunity to think more/reflect

Recognise/understand their achievements

Plan for future career or understand job opportunities/career path better

Determining strengths and weaknesses



Variation in Views Across Years

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2 3

Year of study

% Y

es

Interesting?

waste of time?

Used more widely?

In Year 1 30% cited value with regard to employment compared to 60% in year 3



Students – the Net Generation?

• 66% used images 5% audio 5% video

Reasons for not using multimedia:

• Lack of confidence in the value of using multimedia for assessment • Lack of IT skills• Prior learning experiences

How do you prefer expressing/recording ideas or thoughts?

% preferred

Text 72

Drawings/graphs/tables 20

Audio 1

Video 7



Students – One Size Fits All?

Do you prefer expressing yourself in electronic format?

• 60% computing students • 36% social science

Should ePortfolio be used more widely?

• 70% computing students• 26% social science

Clearly not – ePortfolio assessment must suit the students tasks and skills to be developed



e-Portfolios examples in BB/Web



Tutors

Helps monitoring of progress

Formative/Summative feedback

Easier submission for students

Students found ePortfolio interesting and motivating

Tutor can view work quickly

Save paper work/handouts

Accessible from anywhere

It provided templates to scaffold students progress

Saved time when collecting work

Develop students IT skills

Enabled students to be more creative

Helped identify struggling students

E-portfolios useful

to the course?

100% Yes



Assessment

How where the e-portfolio received for marking? • On a CD 30%• Assignments function 60%• Shared in Blackboard 10% 91% Marked on screen 9% on paper

• 40% found on screen was challenging, • tiring and time consuming

Feedback

• 40% via email• 10% through BB• 10% handwritten on sheets• 20% face to face and 20% did not say



E-portfolios – Issues (Westminster)

Activity designIt is felt that a very careful re-design is necessary as evidencing for e-portfolio is not as straightforward. The use of e-portfolios should be appropriate to the module contents.

Feedback and marking Ideally, be able to leave comments on the final submitted version which could then be returned to the student; be able to leave notes next to the text on the e-Portfolio

SubmissionIdeally it should be possible to freeze the e-portfolio once finally shared

•As the e-portfolio cannot be “frozen”, students were asked to download the e-portfolio onto a CD as a zipped file but this caused some technical problems•Most tutors did not like having to unzip the e-portfolio to view them

SharingE-portfolios should be shared with the tutor early at the start of the module so the tutor can monitor the progress and offer support

•Students did not share the e-portfolio early enough to benefit•Student did not build their e-portfolio gradually•Comments are not flagged with alerts



University of Reading

• Traditional, research focused University• Reviews

– Directorates – Centre for the Development of T&L, responsible for e-learning

• Establishment of Enhancement Committee• Engagement at school level

• e-Learning Benchmarking Exercise– Increased visibility of e-learning with senior management– Approach to staff engagement with e-learning: flexible, non-

directive, evolutionary• New T&L strategy under new PVC (T&L)• VLE support split between CDOTL and ITS• Bb LS VLE since 2001• Bb Academic Suite since 2006 – pilot phase



CS Tools at Reading

CMS Areas Status Detail (restricted to pilots)

My Content Staff and students

Course Content XInstitution Content Pilot areas

Library Content Area-Institution Content / e-reserves

Portfolios Staff and Students

Learning Objects x Not yet available



e-Portfolios - Reading

• Context: PDP agenda• Pilots 2006-07, 2007-08

– To test out the new functionality of Bb– Identify resource implications and pedagogical issues– Set management processes in place

• Institutional roll-out 2008-09• Schools/Subjects

– History, Law, Pharmacy, Plant Sciences, Languages, Health and Social Care, Applied Statistics, Institute of Education, Typography, Centre for Staff Training and Development, Library

• 12 academic staff encouraged by funding and central support and 513 students

• Pilot evaluation: led by academic – reflected subject and use• Approach: non-directive, flexible




• Reflective diaries– progress and personal achievements– Education, Health & Social Care

• Substitute paper based PDP portfolios– Pharmacy

• Careers portfolios and e-PARs– employment– Law

• Formative assessment purposes– History, Biology, Statistics









e-Portfolios – Issues (Reading)

• Use of templates made the e-portfolios easy to use

– Not available by role, hence long list• Access from anywhere

– Great for substituting the paper based portfolios

• Using the CS was complicated– Are Personal portfolios the solution?

• Technical problems when uploading and felt the system was “clunky” (esp. Mac users)

• Sophisticated users felt frustrated by its limitations

• Majority did not appreciate the value of the e-portfolio

– too much work alongside their other coursework

– Reflecting the degree to which they were embedded in the course?

• Assessment motivated students to engage with e-portfolios

• Need for training and support– resource implications

• The majority of students did not engage with the reflection process in any constructive way

– Completed their reflections before deadlines but

– Minority of students used them to great effect

– Mature students were more enthusiastic on reflection despite their low IT literacy/confidence

Students



e-Portfolios – Issues (Reading)

• Considerable time for– Training– Supporting students– Assessing portfolios– Providing comments

• Coupled with technical problems– Difficult to manage a large

number of e-portfolios– Cannot leave comments on

the text– Students did not share their

portfolios with tutor– Cannot freeze e-portfolio

• Close monitoring of students’ progress was a big benefit

• Appreciate potential– some recommended to be

made essential part of the student experience at Reading

• Time implications could be outweighed by the potential benefits

• All but one pilot leads will continue their pilots next year

Staff



e-Portfolios – Lessons Learnt

• Need support at key points

• Students need encouragement to take advantage of multimedia

• Must tailor activities and assessment to students and learning outcomes

• Flexibility allows students to take ownership

• Allowing some flexibility for tutors will motivate and help in the implementation

• Major benefits in monitoring the student’s progress

• Support for both students and staff is essential – resource implications

• Technological issues could inhibit engagement

• Need for addressing the lack of student engagement with reflection

– Integration within the course

Westminster Reading• Need support at key points

• Students need encouragement to take advantage of multimedia

• Must tailor activities and assessment to students and learning outcomes

• Flexibility allows students to take ownership

• Allowing some flexibility for tutors will motivate and help in the implementation

• Major benefits in monitoring the student’s progress

• Support for both students and staff is essential – resource implications

• Technological issues could inhibit engagement

• Need for addressing the lack of student engagement with reflection– Integration within the

course

Westminster Reading



Content System - Reading

• Film, Theatre and Television• Use of Bb for the first time

– departmental approach– rather than individual academics– All taught modules are on Bb– CS contains resource areas for students/staff

• Objectives– Maximise the use of Bb– Move on to dept course management– Make students feel connected to the dept and student

community







Content System – Lessons Learnt

• Staff felt that the CS was an effective and efficient way to store information centrally and access it from the Learning System (or the Bb Portal).

• Students reported that it enhanced the students’ learning environment– everything in one place

• The CS is easy to use, to share files, deliver Bb course content and to access information.

• Staff are not inclined to use Institutional Content area to share teaching materials – sharing culture

• Technical problems (esp. with Mac compatibility)• The structure and naming of the Institutional Content

needs to be thought out in advance.



Senior Management

Board

Bb AS Project Board

Bb AS Implementation

Group

University Board of T&L

Enhancement Committee/

SCITTL

Content SystemGroup

e-Portfolio GroupCommunity System

GroupLearning System

Group

PVCHeads of Directorates/resources

Faculty Directors T&LSLTCsLibraryITSCDOTLAcademicsStudent Union

AcademicsLibrary/ Copyright GroupITSCDOTLRUSU

Project Management of Implementation – Reading

PVC

PVC



SMT

myBU Project Board

Learning Technologists

Group

Senate

Academic Development Committee

L&T Development Committee

Content Management Group(CMG)

Library Group Institution Content Group Disk Quota Group

Releasing Potential Projects

myBU Implementation

Group



Project Management – Lessons Learnt

• Clear reporting structure aligned with University committees

• Involve all stakeholders

• Learn from others e.g. Blackboard conferences, user groups



Discussion

• How are you implementing or planning to implement the Content Management System in your Institution?



Summary and Questions

Lessons Learnt– e-Reserves– e-Portfolios– Managing the implementation of the CS



Further Resources

• Educational Development Serviceshttp://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/eds/

• University of Readinghttp://www.reading.ac.uk/

• Joint Academic Coding Systemhttp://www.hesa.ac.uk/jacs/jacs.htm

Documents

Lessons Learnt from Implementing the Blackboard Content System Dr Barbara Newland Manager of Educational Development Services, Bournemouth University Maria-Christiana