44 Shared Stewart Milton from BlueOrange is a world-class expert in e-Learning, and was generous enough to share ten useful tips for effectively creating e-Learning courses. Whether you’re a beginner or an expert yourself, these principles of e-Learning course authoring can provide you with an excellent basis for creating high-quality content every time. I have been very fortunate to have taught e-Learning applications and course design to so many people and organizations. In this short article I would like to share with you some of the lessons I have shared with so many talented people. I hope that you might be able to use some of my suggestions:Read more »

18 Shared PowerPoint is primarily known as a tool for creating presentations. However, this software also gives you the opportunity to create multiple choice quizzes, one of the most common types of test. Here’s a detailed guide on how to make a quiz in PowerPoint.Read more »

39 Shared MIT defines it as: "...structured opportunities to learn, which use more than one learning or training method, inside or outside the classroom. This definition includes different learning or instructional methods (lecture, discussion, guided practice, reading, games, case study, simulation), different delivery methods (live classroom or computer mediated), different scheduling (synchronous or asynchronous) and different levels of guidance (individual, instructor or expert led, or group/social learning)." More simply, a blended learning solution is a learning modality that combines offline and online aspects to get the best possible result for the students.Read more »

Sharon Shrock and Bill Coscarelli recently completed the third edition of their important book, Criterion-Referenced Test Development: Technical and Legal Guidelines for Corporate Training. If this book isn't in your collection already, I'll give you a link below to buy from Amazon.com. In this third edition, Sharon and Bill have updated the book from the second edition (published in 2000) in some critical ways. One of those ways is truly transformational for the workplace learning and performance field. I'll get to that in a minute. Also updated is the excellent chapter at the end of the book by Patricia S. Eyres, a lawyer with employment-law credentials. Her chapter covers the legal ramifications and guidelines in dealing with employee testing, especially as that testing affects employee selection, advancement, and retention. She has updated her chapter with new case law and legal precedent from that in the second edition. Most people in the training field have very little knowledge of the legal ramifications of testing, and I'd recommend the book for this chapter alone—it's a great wakeup call that will spur a new appreciation of the legal aspects of testing. In the second edition, Shrock and Coscarelli put forward what they call the "Certification Suite." In criterion-referenced testing, the goal is to decide whether a test taker has met a criterion or not. When they have met the criterion, they are said to be "certified" as competent in the area on which they were tested. The Certification Suite has six levels, some which offer full Certification and some which offer Quasi-Certification: Certification Real World High-Fidelity Simulation Scenarios Quasi-Certification Memorization Attendance Affiliation As the authors say in the book (p. 111), "Level C represents the last level of certification that can be considered to assess an ability to perform on the job." The truly transformational thing offered by Shrock and Coscarelli is that Level D Memorization, in the second edition of the book, was considered to offer Certification. NO MORE!! That's right. Two of our leading thinkers on testing say that memorization questions are no longer good enough!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Disclosure: In speaking with Bill Coscarelli in 2006, I gently encouraged this change. This is mentioned in the book, so it's not like I'm bragging. SMILE. I love this, of course, because it follows what we know about human learning. For tests to be predictive of real-world performance, they have to offer similar cues to those that learners will face in the real world. If they offer different cues—like almost all memorization questions do—they are just not relevant. And, from a learning standpoint (as opposed to a certification standpoint) memorization questions won't spur spontaneous remembering through the triggering mechanism of the real-world cues. This literal and figurative raising of the bar—to move it beyond memorization—should shake us to our core (especially since this is one of the few books on assessment that covers legal stuff—so it may have some evidentiary heft in court). If the compliance tests at the end of your e-learning programs are based on memorization questions, you are so in trouble. If your credentialing is based on completion (and 85% of our respondents in the eLearning Guild research report said they utilized completion as a learning measure), you are in even worse trouble. And, of course, if you ever thought your memorization-level questions supported learning, well, sorry. They don't! At least not as strongly as they might. Have you bought the book yet? You should. You ought to at least have it around to show management (or your clients) why it's important (absolutely freakin' critical) to use high-value assessment items. I've got some quibbles with the book as well. They list 6 reasons for testing. I've recently come up with 18, so it appears they're missing some, or I'm drinking too much. I also don't like the use of Bloom's Taxonomy to index some of the recommendations. In short, Bloom's has issues. I don't like the way they talk about learning objectives. They use the methodology of relying on a single objective to guide the process of both instructional design and evaluation. I am now advocating to free instructional-design objectives from the crazy constraint of being super-glued to the evaluation objectives. They need to be linked of course, but not hog-tied. I wish they emphasized more strongly the distinction between testing to assess and testing to support learning. They are different animals and most of us are confused about this. Overall, it's a great and thoughtful book. I bought it. You should too. Here's a link that will let you click here to buy. The Learning Measurement Series will continue in January... (But watch to see who wins this year's Neon Elephant Award, which I'll announce on Saturday (December 22nd 2007). The winner(s) is/are all about learning measurement.)

Article in New York Times discusses research on group creativity. One thing the research has shown is that brainstorming may not be as beneficial as once thought--because individuals working alone come up with better ideas, AND the group needs to improve those ideas.Did you know Einstein's original calculations around e=mc2 needed to be refined by others?Nice article. Note: I was clued in to this article by reviewing my Twitter page, where Clark Quinn had tweeted about this.

Here is the comment I sent to the NY Times in response to their focus on a supposed research study that purported to show that gifted kids are being underserved. I'm a little over the top in my comments, but still I think this is worth printing because it demonstrates the need for good research savvy and it shows that even the most respected news organizations can make really poor research-assessment mistakes. Egads!! Why is the New York Times giving so much "above-the-fold" visibility to a poorly-conceived research study funded by a conservative think tank with obvious biases?Why isn't at least one of your contributors a research-savvy person who could comment on the soundness of the research? Instead, your contributors assume the research is sound.Did you notice that the references in the original research report were not from top-tier refereed scientific journals?In the original article from the Thomas Fordham Institute (a conservative-funded enterprise), the authors try to wash away criticisms about regression-to-the-mean and test-variability, but this bone against the obvious--and most damaging, and most valid--criticisms is not good enough. If you took the top 10% of players in the baseball draft, the football draft, any company's onboarding class, any randomly selected group of maple trees, a large percentage of the top performers would not be top performers a year or two later. Damn, ask any baseball scout whether picking out the best prospects is a sure thing. It's not!And, in the cases I mentioned above, the measures are more objective than an educational test, which has much higher variability--which would make more top performers leak out of the top ranks.NY Times--you should be embarrassed to have published these responses to this non-study. Seriously, don't you have any research-savvy people left on your staff?We have scientific journals because the research is vetted by experts.

I just read a vendor blog post that lists the pros and cons of gamification. PLEASE, let us be smarter than this! Gamification is NOT a THING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There can be NO pros and cons to gamification... Gamification is a label for dozens of specific factors, each of which can be used or not used, or used alone or in concert with other gamification learning factors. Here is a small list of gamification factors (just off the top of my head): competing against a standard competing against others being given some sort of non-tangible "award" for perseverance being given some sort of non-tangible "award" for some level of success being given some sort of non-tangible "award" randomly as you "play" working on a team escaping a threat working toward a specific goal performing with a time constraint et cetera (ad infinitum?) [Hey, if anybody has published a list of gamification factors, let me know and I'll post it.] Seriously, when we oversimplify, we not only show our ignorance of the magical complexity of human learning and cognition, we also hurt our own thinking and problem solving and those of every person with whom we are communicating. Sure, some vendor wants to sell gamification. I get that. But what is really being said is: some vendor wants to sell gamification to the most vulnerable within our profession (newbies, etc.) and even to the less vulnerable and even to the best-and-brightest who may have a temporary brain freeze from such miscommunication. No, no, no! Sorry! That's too cynical, right! Probably the vendor honestly thinks that their list of pros and cons is being helpful. Probably the vendor doesn't really understand that all of us must look more deeply than our industry's surface ripples. How to end this blog post? Hmmm. This is difficult. I'm not sure. Okay, I got it. Final advice: Evaluate the labels used in the learning industry. Seek the constituent factors. Get data on their causal effects. Hire learning experts from time to time to reality check your learning designs. Give yourself a gold star for reading this blog post to the end. You have reached WAWL Level 2, performing better than 92.4% of your colleagues! To get to WAWL Level 3, do a Google Search of Gamification, find a list of Gamification Factors, and send me the link. To get to WAWL Level 4, create your own list, reflect on what you discover, post it somewhere, and send me the link. May the forces of the Neo Elepha keep you safe on your journey. WHO-LA!  

I created a video to help organizations fully understand the meaning of their smile sheets.   You can also view this directly on YouTube: https://youtu.be/QucqCxM2qW4

I'm delighted to be attending the eLearningGuild's DevLearn conference in Las Vegas coming up in late September and early October.     The eLearning Guild always puts on a great conference and I'm excited to learn the latest and greatest on elearning and mobile learning. This year, I'm going to be keeping my eyes out for examples of micro learning and subscription learning -- as I see more an more interest in smaller learning nuggets. Also, I'll be speaking on "Measuring eLearning to Create Cycles of Improvement." In my session, I'll share research-based findings and their implications for elearning measurement designs. Come join me 10:45 AM - 11:45 AM Thursday, October 1.

Over the last year or so I've been doing a lot of thinking about learning at conferences. I've also taken to the conferences-on-conferences circuit to speak on the issue. All too often, conference speakers don't follow science-of-learning prescriptions. Conference sessions may make the audience happy, but may not provide the kinds of supports that help people remember and apply what they've learned. This is bad for conference attendees and their organizations -- because they never realize the benefits of what was learned. But it's also bad for conference organizers as well -- because their customers may not be getting all the value they might be getting. A few days ago, Michelle Russell, editor at Convene Magazine, wrote a great article on implementing the science of learning in conferences. She interviewed me and Peter C. Brown, co-author of the wonderful book, Make it Stick, and winner of the Neon-Elephant Award last year. Here's Michelle's Article: Click to access the article on the Science of Learning for Conferences It's a great read. Michelle does amazing work. I recommend you read the article now and then leave your reflections here so we can get a conversation started. Making changes to conference learning is not easy. Traditions and expectations push against innovations. Still, in attending several recent conferences, I've noticed some very different formats being used to great acclaim.   Jeff Hurt My go-to expert on conference learning is Jeff Hurt of Velvet Chainsaw. Indeed, it was Jeff who got me thinking seriously about conference learning. We've even co-presented on the topic a number of times. Here are two blog post by Jeff that describe typical dangerous assumptions about conference learning: Part 1 Part 2   Improving Keynotes Here's an article I wrote on how to improve the learning benefits of Keynotes: Click to access my article on Improving the Learning Benefits of Keynotes   Learning Coaches In Michelle's article above, Peter C. Brown recommended that conferences have learning coaches to help support speakers and attendees in learning. I'd love to take on that task. And I'm curious. Have you seen anyone play that role? What works? What doesn't?   What are Your Reflections on Conference Learning? Also, I'm wondering what your experiences are around learning at conferences...Leave comments below...

Here's a great article, from NPR, entitled Higher Ed's Moneyball, about Higher Ed's attempts to use data to provide their instructors with real-time data they can use to support their students. The examples cited seem to mostly target usage data, not more rigorous learning data, but I can't be sure. Certainly, over time, someone will figure out how to capture data that is more meaningful. Still, even the usage data seems helpful. For example, students who are inactive for a while can get extra attention, etc. Something to keep an eye on for the future...    

Today, industry luminary and social-media advocate Jane Hart wrote an incendiary blog post claiming that "the world of L&D [Learning and Development] is splitting in two." According to Jane there are good guys and bad guys. The bad guys are the "Traditionalists." Here is some of what Jane says about them: "They cling onto 20th century views of Training & Development." "They believe they know what is best for their people." "They disregard the fact that most people are bored to tears sitting in a classroom or studying an e-learning course at their desktop." "They miss the big picture - the fact that learning is much more than courses, but involves continuously acquiring new knowledge and skills as part of everyday work." "They don't understand that the world has changed." Fighting words? Yes! Insulting words? Yes! Painting with too broad a brush? Yes! Maybe just to make a point? Probably! Still, Jane's message is clear. Traditionalists are incompetent fools who must be eradicated because of the evil they are doing. Fortunately, galloping in on white horses we have "Modern Workplace Learning (MWL) practitioners." These enlightened souls are doing the following, according to Jane: "They are rejecting the creation of expensive, sophisticated e-learning content and preferring to build short, flexible, modern resources (where required) that people can access when they need them. AND they are also encouraging social content (or employee-generated content) - particularly social video - because they know that people know best what works for them." They are ditching their LMS (or perhaps just hanging on to it to manage some regulatory training) - because they recognise it is a white elephant - and it doesn’t help them understand the only valid indicator of learning success, how performance has changed and improved." They are moving to a performance-driven world - helping groups find their own solutions to problems - ones that they really need, will value, and actually use, and recognise that these solutions are often ones they organise and manage themselves." They are working with managers to help them develop their people on the ground - and see the success of these initiatives in terms of impact on job performance." They are helping individuals take responsibility for their own learning and personal development - so that they continuously grow and improve, and hence become valuable employees in the workplace." They are supporting teams as they work together using enterprise social platforms - in order to underpin the natural sharing within the group, and improve team learning." Points of Agreement I agree with Jane in a number of ways. Many of the practices we use in workplace learning are ineffective. Here are some points of agreement: Too much of our training is ineffective! Too often training and/or elearning are seen as the only answer! Too often we don't think of how we, as learning professionals, can leverage on the job learning. Too often we default to solutions that try to support performance primarily by helping people learn -- when performance assistance would be preferable. Too often we believe that we have to promote an approved organizational knowledge, when we might be better off to let our fellow workers develop and share their own knowledge. Too often we don't utilize new technologies in an effort to provide more effective learning experiences. Too often we don't leverage managers to support on-the-job learning. Too often we don't focus on how to improve performance. Impassioned Disagreement As someone who has enjoyed the stage with Jane in the past, and who knows that she's an incredibly lovely person, I doubt that she means to cast aspersions on a whole cohort of dedicated learning-and-performance professionals. Where I get knocked off my saddle is the oversimplifications encouraged in the long-running debate between the traditionalist black hats and the informal-learning-through-social-media white hats! Pitting these groups against each other is besides the point! I remember not too long ago when it was claimed that "training is dead," that "training departments will disappear," that "all learning is social," that "social-media is the answer," etc... What is often forgotten is that the only thing that really matters is the human cognitive architecture. If our learning events and workplace situations don't align with that architecture, learning will suffer. Oversimplifications that Hurt the Learning Field Learners know how they learn best so we should let them figure it out.Learners, as research shows, often do NOT know how they learn best, so it may be counterproductive not to figure out ways to support them in learning. Learning can be shortened because all learners need to do is look it up.Sometimes learners have a known learning need that can be solved with a quick burst of information. BUT NOT ALL LEARNING is like this! Much of learning requires a deeper, longer experience. Much of learning requires more practice, more practical experience, etc. Because of these needs, much of learning requires support from honest-to-goodness learning professionals. All training and elearning is boring!Really? This is obviously NOT true, even if much of it could be lots better. That people can always be trusted to create their own content!This is sometimes true and sometimes not. Indeed, sometimes people get stuff wrong (sometimes dangerously wrong). Sometimes experts actually have expertise that us normal people don't have. That using some sort of enterprise social platform is always effective, or is always more effective, or is easy to use to create successful learning. Really? Haven't you heard more than one or two horror stories -- or failed efforts? Wiki's that weren't populated. Blogs that fizzled. SharePoint sites that were isolated from users who could use the information. Forums where less than 1% of folks are involved. Et cetera... And let's not forget, these social-learning platforms tend to be much better at just-in-time learning than in long-term deeper learning (not totally, but usually). That on-the-job learning is easy to leverage.Let's face it, formal training is MUCH EASIER to leverage than on-the-job learning. On-the-job learning is messy and hard to reach. It's also hard to understand all the forces involved in on-the-job learning. And what's ironic is that there is already a group that is in a position to influence on-the-job learning. The technical term is "managers." Crowds of people always have more wisdom than single individuals.This may be one of the stupidest memes floating around our field right now. Sounds sexy. Sounds right. But not when you look into the world around us. I might suggest recent presidential candidate debates here in the United States as evidence. Clearly, the smartest ideas don't always rise to prominence! Traditional learning professionals have nothing of value to offer.Since I'm on the front lines in stating that our field is under-professionalized, I probably am the last one who should be critiquing this critique, but it strikes me as a gross simplification -- if not grossly unfair. Human learning is exponentially more complex than rocket science, so none of us have a monopoly on learning wisdom. I'm a big proponent of research-based and evidence-based practice, and yet neither research nor other forms of evidence are always omniscient. Almost every time I teach, talk to clients, read a book, read a research article, or read the newspaper, I learn more about learning. I've learned a ton from traditional learning professionals. I've also learned a ton from social-learning advocates.   Summary In today's world, there are simply too many echo-chambers -- places which are comfortable, which reinforce our preconceptions, which encourage us to demonize and close off avenues to our own improvement. We in the learning field need to leave echo-chambers to our political brethren where they will do less damage (Ha!). We have to test our assumptions, utilize the research, and develop effective evaluation tools to really test the success of our learning interventions. We have to be open, but not too-easily hoodwinked by claims and shared perceptions. Hail to the traditionalists and the social-learning evangelists!   Follow-up! Clark Quinn wrote an excellent blog post to reconcile the visions promoted by Jane and Will.   Share! If you want to share this discussion with others, here are the links: Jane's Provocative Blog Post: http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/blog/2015/11/12/the-ld-world-is-splitting-in-two/ Will's Spirited Critique: http://www.willatworklearning.com/2015/11/the-two-world-theory-of-workplace-learning-critiqued.html Clark's Reconciliation: http://blog.learnlets.com/?p=4655#comment-821615    

I've been running Work-Learning Research for 17 years. Over that time, my websites have morphed many times, getting easier to use, getting more powerful, getting better looking. I've always built my own websites, even going so far as to program some eCommerce functionality way back in 2000 or 2001. This is bootstrapping. Sure, I wish I could afford a brilliant web designer, but alas...I muddle through, often slowly. Now, motivated by my impending book release, I decided to take my designs to another level, at least for my book website. Here is the result: www.SmileSheets.com I'm kind of psyched about the new design, but I may have some blind spots. Please send your feedback to me at info@work-learning.com or leave a comment here. Thanks!   = Will Thalheimer

One of the key elements of the Univeristy of Plymouth’s Building Capacity project is learning from the JISC funded Learning Literacies for a Digital Age (LLiDA) project. In order to fully benefit from the LLiDA experience we are working with Helen Beetham, an expert in this area. Helen recently facilitated a workshop for us to help in Defining the Digital Literacy needs of UoP This workshop was attended by a range of Decision makers and Influencers from across the University and is a precursor to focus groups with students and staff. The key resources used in the Defining the Digital Literacy needs of UoP workshop were Managing change: organizations, roles and strategies Literacies development framework Learning Literacies for a Digital Age- institutional audit tool Plymouth workshop slides

The Freshers’ Fair was held in the Roland Levinsky Building on 22nd and 23rd September and, as last year, Learning Technologists were present to tell students about the benefits of using PebblePad to record and reflect on their achievements. There was so much interest that we’ve completely run out of e-Portfolio Overview Guides for Students! Many had already heard of PebblePad through Induction presentations and, as last year, were intrigued by the ability to create CVs and publish ‘webfolios’ on the web. We also ran out of guides promoting ‘myBrand‘, a webfolio that offers advice regarding using the web safely and confidently to promote yourself and your work. This is timely as it confirms that students need support with digital literacy skills, an area which the University has started to address with Helen Beetham, a key contributor to the LLiDA Project. View the excellent photo set from Freshers’ Fair by Jason Truscott

ELESIG (Evaluation of Learners’ Experiences of e-Learning Special Interest Group) is an international community of researchers and practitioners from HE and FE who work together to share knowledge and practice. On Wednesday 6th October I attended the above event to find out about the work involved in the JISC funded SLiDA Project - a study of how UK FE and HE institutions are ‘Supporting Learners in a Digital Age’. 10 institutions have produced case studies and reports with recommendations on how to develop effective institution-wide strategies and practices - these will be available soon. 3 case studies were presented to the group:- ‘How does the focus on developing digital literacies, through the use of blended learning, enhance the student experience?’ (University of Wolverhampton) Wolverhampton already has a widely acknowledged reputation for developing and using blended learning in its curriculum, especially through the integrated use of e-portfolios. The aim of this project was to embed 3 graduate attributes, one of these being digital literacy, into their programme curriculum, and this involved all services. Templates have been developed in the University’s e-portfolio system for students to record and evidence their digital literacy. Another project also used student ‘e-champions’ to use technology to support other students’ learning and act as a link between students and staff. Blended Learning is now integrated into all new courses. ‘How do research-informed approaches to learning and teaching support and develop learners in technology-rich environments’ (Oxford Brookes University) Oxford Brookes has done 5 years of work on learner experiences of e-learning research and aims to "provide an environment where students are proactively engaged in shaping their experience through influencing learning and extracurricular policy, processes and outcomes". It has identified digital and information literacy as one of 5 graduate attributes and has extended the SCONUL model (1999) as a generic framework. They are currently raising awareness and building confidence among staff through engaging programme teams in radical course redesign. The next step will be to undertake a redesign and development of the curricula in order to map the attributes onto each programme. More on this... How is a student enterprise at Surrey preparing learners for a digital age? Surrey is renowned for work integrated learning (WIL) with programmes in all disciplines providing year long work placements. Its CETL, SCEPTrE (Surrey Centre for Excellence in Professional Training and Education), elaborated on this concept, looking at the role of technology in enabling a ‘more complete education’. An outcome of this is CoLab, a student enterprise providing services to students, staff, business and local communities. 5 Students were recruited by SCEPTrE in 2007 who, in turn, took on further part-time (paid for 5 hours/week) recruits as networkers and technologists. Networkers interviewed the student body; technologists provided services: - websites, conferences, workshops and how to build iphone apps! In 2009 CoLab was incorporated into the University’s professional training framework with 2 full-time placement students managing the part-time workers. As the funding from SCEPTrE has now ceased, CoLab has become a commercial enterprise. Advice for others… engage all relevant services and take a coordinated approach allow all courses to define what digital literacy means to them allow time for people to come on board. Make it real, practical and useful by sharing case studies and exemplars identify champions and work with them to develop pilot projects that are relevant in a wider context articulate digital literacy as being developed through the learning process student-run organisations such as CoLab have the potential to enhance opportunities for creative and innovative projects

Facebook recently modified its ‘Groups’ feature. Here’s what they have to say about it… There is some good stuff here, more fully described in this post by allfacebook.com… everyone can post links, photos, videos and events. You can also upload and collaborate on a document. Another new feature is the ability to have live group chats. All of these could be great for student groups. BUT… group members can add their own friends so, even a closed group can quickly have hundreds of members, which means you will receive lots of emails unless you turn this off via ‘Edit Settings’ on the Group page. This also raises privacy issues as consequently you are sharing posts with complete strangers! you can be added to a group by a friend and will automatically be associated with it until you go to that group and remove yourself there is nowhere to add a description of the group, or to publicise events - you are only given the option to add posts, which, of course, get hidden as people post to the wall the discussion board has been removed At the moment, Facebook are continuing to support old groups but, if you want to set up a new ‘old style’ group I’m afraid you’ll have to find someone who is willing to donate an unused one.

OK - just missed Halloween (doh!) but here’s a cautionary tale about the possible perils of using social networking sites… Open publication - Free publishing - More privacy I was asked by Lee Wright, a Lecturer in Midwifery, to create a resource to advise Health & Midwifery students about using social networking sites. Working with him and Stephen Hodge, the Faculty of Health’s Learning Technologist, we decided to produce a video telling the story of a nursing student, Tracy, who is careless using Facebook and therefore has to ‘face the consequences’. The storyboard (above) was created using the excellent toonlet, a free ‘web comic blogging’ tool, although I confess I cheated and also modified some of the panels using Photoshop. The next step is to produce the video and we are currently looking for actors. So, if you would like to get involved UoP peops, please let me know ASAP!

The University of Plymouth currently has three Open Educational Resources (OER) projects funded by JISC and the Higher Education Academy. These projects are funded from Phase 2 of the HEFCE-funded Open Educational Resources (OER) programme, managed jointly by the Higher Education Academy and JISC. The programme runs between August 2010 and August 2011, it will build on and expand the work of the pilot phase around the release of OER material, and commence research and technical work examining the discovery and use of OER - specifically by academics. The OER projects currently running at the University of Plymouth are: Learning from WOeRK: OERs for CPD in the workplace The Open Fieldwork (OF) Project The Educational Development Open Resources (EDOR) Project These projects build on the experiences ganined from the previous C-change in GEES Project, funded under the Open educational resources programme - phase 1

JISC has announced its latest call for funding proposals for projects to undertake work under the sixth round of its Learning and Teaching Innovation Grants Programme. JISC wishes to fund one year projects and activities (up to £50,000) that fit with the vision, outcomes and principles of the JISC e-Learning programme and support innovative approaches to learning and teaching. This is an open call, and projects dealing with any aspect of e-learning are welcomed. To reduce the initial investment in time and resource needed to develop a traditional JISC proposal and to encourage speculative and innovative ideas from the community bidders are invited to submit outline proposals. For the purposes of this call, innovative proposals are considered to be ones which fulfil the following: are unique or pioneering - something that has not been done previously could be considered to be a "high-risk" intervention use innovative technologies or practice to directly benefit learning or the learning process for learners. For further details see http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/funding_calls/2011/01/grant0408.aspx Details of previously funded LTIG bids can be found at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearning/ltig.aspx, this also includes a review of previous bids by Neil Witt (http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/review_of_ltig_v3.doc) If staff from the University of Plymouth would like to discuss a possible bid to JISC under the Learning and Teaching Innovation Grants Programme please contact Neil Witt

Regular visitors to technologyenhancedlearning.net may have seen and used the JISC TechDis Accessibility Toolbar which has been rebranded as the ATbar. We have just updated the button which is still located in the top right hand corner of the website. The ATbar has become part of the Fix The Web campaign, where people can now report sites to volunteers using the toolbar. The ATBar was developed by researchers from the School of Electronics and Computer Science, University of Southampton. For more information please see the ATbar homepage and ATbar Functions where you can discover what each button can do to meet your accessibility needs.

Today the announcement has come out regarding this year’s round of academic promotions! I am delighted to say that the number of Professors in our Teaching and Learning Directorate has increased to 5 which demonstrates the excellence of Teaching and Learning here at Plymouth! Congratulations to Prof Debby Cotton, Head of Educational Development, and our very own Prof Neil Witt, Head of Technology Enhanced Learning on their promotions! Professor in the area of technology enhanced learning is a fantastic achievement and shows Plymouth University’s commitment to and excellence in embedding TEL centrally in our teaching, learning, assessment and research activities! Congratulations must also go to Prof Pauline Kneale, Pro Vice-Chancellor & Director of Teaching & Learning! These promotions show the excellence in this area and the strength of her support and leadership!

Have you ever wondered what a Podcast is and how you can create and use them with your students? Podcasts are bite-sized chunks of audio and/or video content that are designed to be played on computers or mobile devices. Come along to the 2 hour University staff session to learn about: Scenarios where you can use podcasting Equipment & software you need to record a podcast Planning and recording a podcast Distributing your podcasts to students Copyright, good practice and hints & tips Sessions available on 15 May, 12 June, 24 July and 21 August. For further details on the session and how to book a place see University Staff training course page.

This guide has been produced to highlight a number of ‘free to use’ tools available via the Internet that can be used within teaching and learning. The full guide can be accessed on this topic can be accessed here.