WebCT Holes

Define [Things that WebCT Vista can't do (or we haven't realised it can do!) that our simple little homemade Courseware could]

Actually I'll come back to that. But a big hole has appeared in online submisions. What is going on? We successfully had students uploading all their coursework to WebCT Campus last academic year. The prime focus of this activity is letting the student upload their files in a simple manner. Vista allows this, but seems to have a focus on the student cut and pasting their work rather than uploading (which is still there - but no reassuring email confirmation to the student).
It's what happens next is the real worry. When you go do access the students work, in Campus it was all neatly zipped up and downloaded. In Vista the focus seems to be on marking and giving feedback online! Yikes! We can't afford to download work one student at a time.
Is this a mistake? Have we missed something? Do we need to take a deep breath and review how we use this tool?

WebCT Holes

Define [Things that WebCT Vista can't do (or we haven't realised it can do!) that our simple little homemade Courseware could]

Actually I'll come back to that. But a big hole has appeared in online submisions. What is going on? We successfully had students uploading all their coursework to WebCT Campus last academic year. The prime focus of this activity is letting the student upload their files in a simple manner. Vista allows this, but seems to have a focus on the student cut and pasting thier work rather than uploading (which is still there - but no reassuring email confirmation to the student).
It's what happens next is the real worry. When you go do access the students work, in Campus it was all neatly zipped up and downloaded. In Vista the focus seems to be on marking and giving feedback online! Yikes! We can't afford to download work one student at a time.
Is this a mistake? Have we missed something? Do we need to take a deep breath and review how we use this tool?

The mist is clearing!

After spending some days debating the pros and cons of various methods of creating the architecture for our template things have started to become a lot clearer. I had built an example purely using a file/folders structure but then created another version using learning modules to create each weekly entry.
I had been seduced by the learning module as this seemed the way WebCT had been designed to work. We were bending the model by linking to various file formats in the menu (lecture slides and handouts), but a key thing was that each weeks text (learning objectives etc) were held in a separate html which seemed to make much more sense than cramming this into a header under the files/folder model.
However, as the learning modules were created and tested the holes started to appear in this method. Navigation via Course Tools/Course Content menu was near impossible as the menu kept closing. The breadcrumb trail failed as it recorded every jump made rather than recording the structure of the hierachy.
But most of all was the realisation that each of the learning modules created as a weeks entry where also being collated under the Course Tools/Learning Modules button. This meant that any 'real' learning modules (eg. guide to academic writing, time management tutorial) where mixed with weeks 1 through to 24. Not good!
So (big breath), current thinking which takes on board many wise words for my various mentors, advisors and critics, leads me back to the original files/folders structure. This supports the delivery of accompanying files (lecture slides etc), allows for web links, provides editable space for the accompanying text (either in the header or as a linked html file) and allows for links to learning objects such as the time management tutorial.
I think this method works closer to the intended model on which WebCT has been built. Yes, we start with a document repository, but now the additional tools allow us to expand which may include new learning modules specific to our own units, online tests, discussion boards, online submissions or more practical elements such as group assignment or tutorial sign ups.
It's actually getting quite exciting now!

Module or not to module?

I've hit a rather large brick wall on this one. I have created a whole unit using the files and folders model. (incidentally trying to explain the difference between using files and folder AND learning modules is nearly impossible to non-users). Anyway, using this method provides a very courseware like interface once you get into a particular weeks entry. This will consist of a page (actually a folder) which has text explaining what is happening that week (learning outcomes etc) and below will be a series of linked files. These may be lecture slides, handouts, web links and/or links to Learning Modules (eg. Learning modules on Academic Writing, Time Mangement or Plagiarism).
The biggest downside to the model is that the main text for each weeks entry is held in the header of the particular folder. Whilst this is accessible and easy to edit I can't help feel that we are forcing the header to be used in a way it was not intended.

So the alternative. Create each weeks entry as a Learning Module. The text for that particular week is created in a separate html file and is attached as the first document. Subsequent files such as lecture slides are also linked and appear in the learning module menu. There is no indication of the file format (or size) so this will need to be added manually.
So far so good. The problems. Now that we have created 24 weeks as learning modules, each of these weekly entries now appears under the learning Modules button in the Course Tools menu. But our weekly entries aren't really learning modules, but they are now mixed up with the 'real' learning modules on Time Management etc.
Also, we can't link to a learning module (eg. from Week 2 to the Time Management module) from within the week (because learning modules can't link to other learning modules).
Navigation is also poor in our current setup as the Course Tools menu minimises by default as you enter a weeks entry.

Basically both options are a 'bit rubbish', but which one do I go with. I lean towards the Learning Modules option because I like more than anything the idea that each weeks text is held on a discreet web page as opposed to in the header of a folder.

Things I'm learning:

1. I tried to link to key documents (syllabus, reading list and programme) within the head of the homepage. Vista doesn't like it, so this reintroduces a Unit Information page which had been dropped. This is good because we now have a space for other odds and sods that a unit might need.

2. The original Unit Information folders contained links to Discuission boards and Unit Feedback. These must go on the homepage. For them to work they need to be obvious (hidden when not needed) and in the users face. Yes, the discussion is accessible via the Course Tools navigation bar but this is almost an advert. Disscussions will be a optional tool.

3. Ay Carumba! The ACW folder orginally designed to hold all the submission boxes for assignments (and the briefs) doesn't need to exist. This is all bundled together under the Assignments button on the Course Tools navigation bar. Gone.

Doh! Keep it simple stupid!

Online submission

Information and Communications took the plunge (just as term started) last September (05) to provide online submission for every element of coursework. It wasn't manatory except in a couple of units that moved 'electronic only' submission.

The department isn't new to electronic submission with a variety of methods including previous webct submission, submission to web space and network drive submissions being used for a variety of taught units. Moving to electronic submission, in support of traditional paper submission for all other units was not a giant leap. The key desicion was to create Submission Zones for the three Levels (years), plus one for Masters units. This was seen as an interim setup prior to the move of all units to WebCT Vista. The ideal being that once this is implemented each unit can have its own submission boxes.

As far as I can tell at present the whole operation was overall a success. It did rely heavily on our Information Officer to get the correct students seeing the correct zones. As this was a blunder bust approach all students could see all assignments for their level, not just the ones for the units they were taking. There was also cross over with masters students needing to see some undergraduate assignments. There were also Combined Honours students and Erasmus students to deal with.

Each assignment was set a cut off time of five to midnight on the date of submission. The theory behind this being that the paper submission could be dealt with (usually at 3.30pm) and then the student would have sufficient time then to organise the electronic submission. The downfall in this approach was that any student who then had difficulties could not get support at this late hour. The simple answer to this seems to be a 5pm electronic submission deadline.

The other key issue was either late submissions, or more importantly agreed late submissions (extensions). WebCT can be configued to allow late submissions for each unit which will work fine in the Vista environment. Our policy is up until 2 weeks after the deadline for 40 percent max mark. The problem comes after this time. We did address this by creating a Late Submission box as a catch all resource. Unfortunately if a student has submitted one item, they could not then submit another.
The simple answer may be not to accept online submissions beyond the additional two weeks. Any extended submissions would be emailed directly to the tutor. This is something to discuss.

Actual access to the submissions was also another issue. Using the Submision Zones only myself and the Information Officer had access to the submitted work. One of the trickiest things was actually downloading all the assignments. because of the blunder bust approach when downloading we were faced with entries for every student on that level, and not just the students taking the unit. To avoid downloading multiple empty folders we had to select the actual submissions individually to then download as a batch.

Many of the problems will be removed as we move to the Vista environment. Each unit will have an ACW section which will contain the assignment briefs and the submision boxes (?) for each element of assessment. By default, only those doing the unit will have access to this area.

Student feedback was very positive, with some asking for more 'online only' submissions. I do have feedback from two small surveys (with small responce rates) that I will publish. I will also look at how many students submitted when it wasn't mandatory. Watch this space!

Disappointment!

One of the most disappointing issues since starting the project has been to find that the teacher access is too restrictive. In my ignorance I had presumed (hoped) that by creating a template and from that template a WebCt Course area for each taught unit, I could then give staff teacher access to enable them to manage their units (areas). This would include uploading files and editing/creating text entries. This way the 'templated look' of the unit areas stays untouched (maintains consistency) and staff are not faced with the full glory of designer access!

Sadly this seems not to be, everyone needs to be a designer!

On the downside staff are faced with a variety of options, buttons and widgets that they have no desire to use. They also have the rights that allow them to trash the templated look, and therefore destroy the consistency (although I'm sure they won't).
On the plus side, the keener staff have immediate access to the additional tools they may wish to use. They may also wish to start developing learning modules for example to deliver certain elements of their unit.

Again, if you've cracked this one drop me a line!

Files/Folders or learning Modules?

I'm close to having two demonstration units ready fro staff to look at. The key difference is that one uses a folder to deliver each weeks entry and the other uses a Learning Module. As I have worked on this I am beginning to get an insight into the different approaches. Overall Vista is a frustrating tool to use as a. it's new to me and b. it has limited functionality, especially when you work in the copy, cut and paste made of a web developer.

So which method is best? I'm not yet sure! Creating a folder I use the header to provide the title for that weeks entry, plus additional text such as learning outcomes for that week. Everything else is attached below as a file. This allows me to attach to lecture slides and handouts. Using the relevant icon (MSWord or Powerpoint) it's easy to warn users of the file type. It's also a good way to add external web links as they get gathered together under the WebLinks button on the left.
Entry for staff is fairly simple, they can use the HTML editor (in WYSIWYG mode) to add/edit text to each weeks entry. Linking to files is also simple. This is either files already uploaded or files held locally to be uploaded. Staff would need to follow a convention for naming files and finding the correct icon.
Likewise, linking to existing learning modules from any week is straight forward and requires little skill or knowledge.
There are possibilities for use of webdav, which for the uninitiated gives you a folder on your PC desktop that links straight to your units files. This allows you drag and drop access to your unit files. You can also do this from home with broadband.

The big issue for me in the above method is you are obviously using the folder in a way it wasn't designed for. By using the header for what is essentially the body text you are bending the application to our needs. This means it's not as flexible as you would wish. However, it does provide a clear interface to the weekly entry and it is relatively easy to maintain.

Using the Learning Module method to supply a weekly entry is not dissimilar. However, the 'body' text is created in its own HTML file (which we can pre-prepare and label) which is much better than using the header. The module is designed to deliver a series of files, one after the other via a left navigation menu. We would be using this menu to serve up all the additional documents and links.
The down side of this is that we will need to flag up at least the file format in the name we give the link. In Courseware we ensured the system tagged up any file to disclose both its file type and file size automatically. In either way with WebCT we will have to do this manually.
By serving up our supporting files from this menu (eg. Powerpoint lecture slides) we are breaking the model of the Learning Module. When students get to use an actual Learning Module they will find that the menu usually contains a sequential series of web pages as they work through the module. Are we going to cause problems by breaking this model?

Thoughts and input from others facing these issues would be gratefully received!

Time to get started

Exams over, exam boards over. Time to get moving. I now have a few short weeks to dedicate to this project. Closely supported by Margaret Kendall I have finally started to get hands on experience with WebCT Vista.

Following Margaret's recommendation we convened a departmental meeting that gave us a chance to bring staff up to date, to introduce Vista and to give staff the chance to ask questions and voice concerns. The morning session followed the following programme:

• Introduction to the InfoComms Stage 1 Vista project (Richard Eskins)
• Overview of MMU Vista implementation project (Margaret Kendall)
• Demonstration of Vista features. Moving courseware into Vista: using Folders and/or Learning Modules. (Margaret Kendall)
• Needs analysis and design of Vista template for the Physiotherapy Department (Claire Hamshire and Nicola Whitton)
• Discussion of ways forward and plans for future training sessions

From a design perspective the dilemma seems to be how to deliver weekly entries. (I should explain that Courseware delivers supporting materials in a weekly sequence, based on the content of each weeks lecture/seminar). Claire and Nicola have one of the more advanced Vista projects at MMU, already having a template on which to base each entry for each taught unit (module). This uses the learning module structure to display/provide the content for a particular week. Like Info Comms, these are materials in support of a blended learning environment rather than a full on e-learning environment.

Because of this dilemma Margaret kindly recreated part of one of our existing Level one units, Learning and Communications Technologies into the Vista environment using a files and folders structure. This unit also has some Learning Modules such as Time Management or Academic Writing which were also moved to Vista. Margaret demonstrated how these can be linked to and used within the files/folders structure.

Staff reaction to the demonstration and the 'idea' of moving to the Vista environment was mixed. In one camp was the very sensible opinion that our approach should be very systematic, with a small trial on a very limited number of units for the first year. A second camp raised the whole issue of the use of a VLE and its impact on current teaching practices. Because of the expandability of Vista in comparison to Courseware, is it in fact a slippery route to less face to face teaching and more pressures to develop units online? The third camp was satisfied with what they saw, and responded with a 'just do it' attitude.

All the above points are very valid. It does make sense to avoid the big bang approach (which we didn't with Courseware) and to trial a number of units. That being said, on a practical level, moving all of Level One to Vista would provide a smoother transition. There are also individual staff who are keen to 'just move now' with their units (including myself). Inevitability the coming year is going to mean mixed access for many students (WebCT Vista, WebCT Campus, Courseware), but this will be for one year only. The sensible side also means we should be wary of investing in a system that may be flakey for that first year.

Some decisions need to be made over the coming weeks. I am preparing to launch two demonstration modules, both looking the same but one delivering each weeks entry as a Folder and the other delivering the entry as a Learning Module. To be discussed next.

A blog worth looking at:
Centre for Learning Technology internal blog
http://econwiki.lse.ac.uk/clt/blog/

I've been handed the following model that best describes how we currently work within Courseware.

"I want timed release so I can stay one (maybe two) week(s) ahead of the students. I'll give a vague schedule for the year and then update it depending on how students are getting on with the stuff and adding it new case studies and news articles as they happen/as I find them."

How do we continue to work like this within the WebCT envronment without expecting staff to become WebCT authors? Then even if we do find a way (perhaps via external apps. such as Contribute), what happens when staff want to use additional tools? Do they for instance have to learn to manage their own electronic submissions?