In 2000, Kingston University adopted Blackboard1 as its virtual learning environment (VLE) and embarked on a three-year roll out across the institution. To reflect this strategic move towards e-learning, subject librarians have been working closely with teaching staff to develop electronic collections across a wide range of disciplines. Examples of this include the growth of our electronic journals collection to around 8,000 titles and the creation of some 2,000 reading lists on Talis List,2 which can be linked directly into Blackboard modules.
The modular structure to Blackboard adopted by Kingston does not always make it easy for library staff to contribute as much as they would like to the learning process. Student information is transferred into Blackboard from the student information system (Sits) and teaching staff are manually associated with their modules, whereas the library staff are added by individual module leaders as requested. Despite this the introduction of e-resources and information skills elements into modules has been widespread, reflecting the close relationship between library staff, teaching staff and educational technologists developed through our liaison skills. Library staff are always looking for new ways in which they can contribute to Blackboard development, and the library’s relationship with the Educational Technology Unit (ETU), part of the university’s Academic Development Centre (ADC), has been crucial to this.
Part of the ADC’s remit is to drive forward e-learning development. Early in 2004 it recognised the need to re-evaluate some elements of e-learning at Kingston. Although initial take-up of Blackboard had been good, with much practical content added in terms of lecture notes, presentations and reading lists, it was felt that the time was right to step back and re-examine the pedagogy more closely. Betty Collis3 talks about re-engineering courses to improve flexibility for the learner in terms of where they learn, interaction in group work, communication with instructors and range of study materials. The ADC identified the need to recognise the changing demands of learners in the e-learning environment and to facilitate course/module redesign to reflect new modes of delivery. This was an opportunity to bring teaching colleagues together to work in groups on the development of e-learning content.
The outcome of this was the launch of a new initiative – Sesl (Sustainable e-Supported Learning) – pronounced ‘Cecil’. Sesl was inspired by the work of Professor Gilly Salmon from the Open University and Visiting Professor at Glasgow Caledonian University, whose Carpe Diem project4 offers teaching staff the opportunity to ‘Get online in three days!’
One of the key elements of the Carpe Diem process is working within a supportive environment and having the relevant expertise on hand to create materials. In practice this means bringing together the course teaching team, ICT staff, educational developers, administrators and librarians to work in collaboration. Carpe Diem gives staff the opportunity to work off campus, away from teaching commitments, and to focus on the task in hand. It is also an excellent opportunity to reflect on e-teaching and learning approaches, and to assist with this the Sesl programme adopted Aster Tools (Assisting Small Group Teaching through Electronic Resources)5 to help staff evaluate their current practices.
Practical group work
The principal objective of a Sesl day is to give a module or course team the time for hands-on practical group work to construct or revise a piece of e-learning activity to embed in their course. At the end of the day, the activity may not be complete but it can be taken away for further development.
In practical terms it was necessary to adapt the Carpe Diem methodology to suit working practices at Kingston. Sesl comprises a pre-meeting with the course team followed by a single day working in a series of dedicated rooms on campus. The pre-meeting is facilitated by one of the ETU leaders and is used to set objectives for the Sesl day itself. An element of e-teaching and learning is identified for development on the day. Consideration is given to the different tools needed, and the project outline is then distributed to the supporting staff so that the appropriate equipment, software and documentation can be arranged. At the launch of Sesl a single meeting was held for all potential support staff to introduce the process. Checklists were produced to ensure teaching staff were aware of the full range of services, equipment and expertise at their disposal.
The programme for each Sesl day includes:
9am -9.15am Arrival and coffee
9.15am - 10am Briefing, overview of
resources and introduction
to the team or teams
10am -12pm Course teams working on
their developments
(including fieldwork elements,
e.g. video capture)
12pm - 12.30pm Interim feedback session
from each of the course
teams 12.30pm – 3.30pm Lunch while course teams
continue working on their
developments
3.30pm - 4pm Demonstration from each
team on their development/
activity with feedback
4pm - 4.45pm Development adjusted,
based on feedback received
4.45pm – 5pm Wrap-up and review of
follow-up support available
Having attended the pre-meeting on behalf of the library it became clear that, on the day itself, the relevant subject librarian would need to be there along with the Copyright Officer. The launch of Sesl was met with enthusiasm by library staff who immediately saw it as a new opportunity for liaison with their academic colleagues.
Prior to our first Sesl event I contacted the library staff at Glasgow Caledonian to see whether we could learn from their experience of Carpe Diem. They warned us to expect quite a lot of hanging around but said it was a worthwhile investment in terms of building closer working relationships with academic staff.
On the day, it was appropriate to give an overview of what the library services could offer, so a short introductory presentation was prepared detailing the resources currently available, outlining our information skills expertise, and offering our services as detectives to investigate the availability of third-party materials for incorporation into modules.
Two days were planned in the first instance, covering three courses/modules each:
- Business and Strategy;
- Computing and Information Systems;
- English in Action;
- Live Arts;
- Pharmacy;
- Physiotherapy.
For the first event, outlines of each team’s objectives were received about a week in advance. A common theme was the use of multimedia. One team wanted to combine audio with images within the online assessment environment, the second team hoped to incorporate videos of student presentations, while the third aimed to make a video demonstrating a specific chemical procedure. All were keen to discover other sources of multimedia for their modules. Given this emphasis, we agreed that the most useful person on the library team was likely to be the Copyright Officer. The subject librarians were concerned that they might not have a role but were eager to attend and see how the day evolved.
Busy work schedules
It proved more difficult to get information in advance of the second event. Perhaps this was inevitable in that the most willing and organised teams came forward readily for the first event. Equally, the second day took place closer to exams when staff were already in the midst of marking. Ideally all members of a module team should attend but, in practice, busy work schedules prevented this. Teaching staff, including the ADC staff, agreed that trying to find a day suitable for everyone had been virtually impossible.
How much were library staff able to contribute to the process on the day? The library’s brief introductory presentation proved a valuable start, receiving a warm welcome from academics keen to take advantage of constructive and willing help. Once the subject librarians joined their relevant groups they were quickly assimilated into the teams.
As the day progressed it was clear that there had to be much thinking ‘on the fly’. It was almost impossible to predict the types of questions that could come up. For example, the English in Action team, focusing on online assessment involving regional accents, wanted to link their audio clips to a map. Suddenly we found ourselves demonstrating Digimap6 and assessing whether we could create suitable maps. In Live Arts, time was spent researching the source of images to clear copyright as well as participating in some filming on location in the town centre. Generally, teaching staff were impressed by the resourcefulness of their subject librarians – their awareness of how students find information and their knowledge of e-resources.
Our Copyright Officer circulated between the groups handing out leaflets and making it clear that he was ‘on call’. In practice, he was often pulled in several directions at once. The teaching staff appreciated being able to talk to him in person and explore the legal aspects of what they were trying to achieve, especially getting to grips with digital image rights issues.
It was clear that all staff involved had found Sesl a useful and informative experience. The subject librarians and the Copyright Officer thought this was an excellent opportunity to meet and work with the academic staff in an informal setting. Although everyone agreed that there had been some ‘hanging around’, they felt it was time well spent in terms of future links with the module teams. This was also a new forum in which the library could demonstrate its most recent e-resource acquisitions. It was also unusual in providing librarians with the opportunity to preview the type of course material the academics wanted to develop. This was seen as a means of ensuring that the library continues to develop collections and services to meet teaching requirements.
One lesson driven home to all was that planning was the key to success. The teams which achieved the most had come with a single, clear idea of what they wanted to create. Other teams acknowledged that they had wasted time trying to decide which of several ideas they wanted to work on. Where these debates occurred, there was also the likelihood of team members heading off in different directions rather than working together to achieve a single goal.
Most staff learnt something new about the variety of technologies available. It was essential that all staff attending already had a good working knowledge of Blackboard basics but most attendees were impressed and excited by the range of additional software facilities which could be used to improve the range of e-teaching techniques within their modules. Many were seeing software such as MS Producer,7 Course Genie8 and Perception9 for the first time. This resulted in follow-up sessions being organised focusing on specific packages. Staff felt that it was important to extend their own skills in this area, while recognising that at other times it is important to take advantage of existing expertise within the university.
Library staff also benefited from viewing some of the new software available. One subject librarian was sufficiently inspired by the Course Genie package that, by the end of the day, he was mentally restructuring his information skills workbooks to exploit the interactivity and clarity it offers through the easy conversion of MS Word documents into HTML.
However, the Sesl process does have some limitations. The whole support team has met to evaluate the days and one of the main concerns was that a single day was often too short to achieve the course team’s objectives. However, this has to be set against the practicalities of finding staff willing to spare two or more consecutive days. Some of the complaints about adopting e-learning stem from the amount of time needed to construct interesting materials and, even for the more committed academic staff, the challenges of technology can prove too much, especially when this work has to be balanced against other priorities.
Lack of time is always an easy argument for not doing something, and the consensus among the Sesl participants was that the day had been very worthwhile. As a result, six further days will take place over the summer, and the aim is to timetable Sesl days throughout the academic year. On the basis that two-day Sesls could deter teaching staff from taking part at all, it was agreed that one-day events would continue.
In the meantime, Sesl has spread beyond teaching staff. An event was held for course administrators to introduce them to Blackboard and to enable them to answer queries from students. In addition, we have held our own library Sesl day. Interest among subject librarians in developing our existing information skills assignments into an online question bank using Perception and Blackboard, provided the perfect topic.
To date, feedback from all library staff who have participated in Sesl days has been very positive. Sesl has provided a very different opportunity to work closely with teaching staff and to demonstrate that the library is able to contribute to the e-teaching and learning process. By bringing together a wide range of staff and expertise, Sesl should enable the university to develop a more integrated approach to module and course design, resulting in an improved online experience for the student. J
References
1 www.blackboard.com
2 Talis List (www.talis.com/products/talislist/talislist_overview.shtml).
3 B. Collis. 1998. ‘New didactics for university instruction: why and how?’ Computers & Education 31, pp. 373 - 393.
4 G. Salmon. ‘Any time this century: an exploration of achieving more with less for implementing e-learning.’ Presented at ‘Strategic Responses to Change’, Cambridge, 2003 (www.atimod.com/presentations2003.asp [broken link removed on 14 April 2005]).
5 Aster (Assisting Small Group Teaching Through Electronic Resources) Tools, 2002 (http://cti-psy.york.ac.uk/aster/) .
6 Digimap (http://edina.ac.uk/digimap/description/).
7 MS Producer (www.microsoft.com/office/powerpoint/producer/
prodinfo/default.mspx).
8 www.coursegenie.com
9 Perception (www.qmark.co.uk).
Elizabeth Malone is Head of E-Strategy & Collection Management, Kingston University Library Services (e.malone@kingston.ac.uk).