Had a short, informal session with my line manager and programme leader about various aspects of the University’s processes around being a module leader and the new responsibilities I have. I found it really useful to get more details about things like completing reports for the external examiner and the required paperwork for our module boards which are imminent.
This was a bespoke session run by the academic development side of the CELT for the benefit of us on the learning technology side, in response to some issues we raised at our team away day back in April.
A problem we have is that often, when encouraging academics to change some part of their practice, to use online quizzes instead of paper based forms for example, we are met with resistance in the form of being told that changes can’t be made because something in the University’s regulations prevents it. There seems to be a lot of myths in the institution about what people are and aren’t allowed to do, so we asked for a session of this nature to give us a better overview of what the rules actually are so that we can better help academics, and what we need to do to ensure that polices are followed lest we spend hours working on something which can’t then be used.
And very useful it was. We covered the key areas of the University’s Academic Quality Handbook, particularly on what changes module and programme leaders can make unilaterally, and what needs to be approved through either the ‘Minor Modification’ process or revalidation. We also discussed the Module Catalogue and why that needs to be the single source of truth for students on what they can expect from their studies, how assessment can be reworked to reduce the number of individual assessment components in a module, and how, contrary to one common myth, you can use custom assessment marking criteria and rubrics, you just have to make sure that it maps against the University’s generic assessment criteria.
An Introduction to Participatory Arts – the first presentation of the university’s first MOOC came to a close today. For students it officially ended yesterday, and today the MOOC leader, the principle content developer, and myself met in what was effectively the exam board for the MOOC to assess students’ final submission and award certificates of participation to those who had passed. There were only seven students, out of the 160 or so who were registered, which is a higher than typical non-completion rate for MOOCs, but this was a tough course, MA level content, so we weren’t too displeased. We will be following up with some of the students about the level of content and discussing how we can improve things in future presentations.
For a discussion on non-completion rates on MOOCs, and the reasons why, see this paper from Warwick University (PDF, 473 KB).