Work Review

May 2015 – Work Review

MC Work Log

Lecture capture features highly on my agenda again, but this month I’ve also had time to co-deliver a PGCAP session on technology-enhanced learning, provide some advice for students revising and complete my penultimate MA assignment.

The impact of lecture capture at York

With a lot of data now to hand, I am keen to share this as a way to explain the strengths and limitations of lecture capture as a learning resource to both staff and students. The lecture capture impact workshop I delivered in May for staff aimed to encourage discussion about the role of lecture capture, enabling staff to share concerns and positive experiences. The workshop also contributed towards my MA studies in leading professional development as I will be drawing upon my facilitation of it for my final assessment. Of note was the slowly emerging interest in flipped classroom pedagogies, where knowledge-transfer takes place out of the class prior to face-to-face sessions in order that the contact time is better spent on higher-order learning activities. Supporting resources are linked here:

The following materials are available to University of York staff only:

Tips for students revising

Still on the theme of lecture capture (I’m sure I do more than just that), I’ve pulled together four top tips for students using our system (Echo360) to help their revision. These point out some of the features that students might not be aware of, but can really make using such video resources more efficient and more effective: creating bookmarks to jump straight to key parts of a lecture or to indicate problem areas for following up, navigating using slide thumbnails, using the discussion tool for group revision, and changing the playback speed. See the blog post on revision tips, which includes videos.

PGCAP workshop

Simon and I delivered this year’s technology-enhanced learning workshop for the Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice. We focused around three themes, each with their own mini-lecture: Content, Activity and Assessment. I presented on Content, referring briefly to the role and range of different forms of content that technology offers for easy dissemination to and creation by staff and students. For Activity, I drew upon Conole et al. (2004) which I find a really helpful way to map different learning activities in terms of their learning and teaching approach, rather than the tool being used. Using such a map across a module and programme can also ensure you are not repeating the same style of learning just with different tools. In the session itself, I used Padlet to collate participant contributions (something that worked well previously with a session for postgraduates who teach) and Simon used Kahoot for an ad-hoc quiz that participants could answer using their mobile device. Finally we asked participants to undertake a learning design task which encouraged them to think about technology as an embedded part of learning and teaching, and indeed not one that should be onerous. The task drew upon the University of Ulster Viewpoints workshop model, utilising the learning approaches cards as a way of structuring the overall learning activity before deciding upon the tools to be used.

Summary from the Content mini-lecture

Content should be provided in a form that supports intended learning objectives. In many case it requires appropriate signposting. The choice of content is informed by a number of constraints including accessibility, device ownership and copyright.

Summary from the Activity mini-lecture

Learning technologies support a wide range of learning experiences. Activity design and choice of tool are intrinsically linked. The success of an activity is dependent on the learning space, ability to motivate students, and connect with learning beyond the activity.


Conole, G., Dyke, M., Oliver, M. and Seale, J. (2004) ‘Mapping pedagogy and tools for effective learning design’, Computers and Education, vol. 43, nos.1–2, pp.17–33.

Supporting CMALT at York

We are continuing supporting CMALT applicants at York and this month I delivered a briefing on Section 2. Learning, Teaching and Assessment, and Section 3. The Wider Context. In section 2, candidates are likely to bring in the theory, though it’s important to not write an academic essay but instead demonstrate the application of theory to practice. Identification of learners is important and can equally be other staff as well as students. The reflections would probably show some understanding of the background and context of the learners and how candidates adapt their approach for them.

Drawing upon my previous post on the subject, I provided a very light-touch overview of key legislative and policy areas that CMALT applicants might wish to draw upon in this section. The most common are copyright and accessibility, but for a little more interest, a practical and reflective application of institutional learning and teaching strategies also offers candidates the opportunity to show how they may have influenced policy-making or deployment. Key legislation in the UK for the two most commonly chosen areas will be:

The institutional context is important in applying these, so be aware of the equality needs within your institution and any policies around legislative areas that have translated the national agenda to the local context.

Ongoing: Lecture Capture Awareness

I met with staff in two departments during May to go through the way lecture capture has been deployed at York and how they could utilise the service. Whilst I tend to tailor the presentation to the subject discipline, the generic version is available to view online (University of York staff only):

Reading this month

In preparation for the lecture capture workshop, I did some reading up on flipped classroom models and also drew upon some papers I fear I may be able to recite in my sleep:

Enfield, J. (2013) ‘Looking at the Impact of the Flipped Classroom Model of Instruction on Undergraduate Multimedia Students at CSUN’, TechTrends, 57, 6, 14-27.

Slomanson, W. R. (2014) ‘Blended Learning: A Flipped Classroom Experiment’, Journal of Legal Education, 64, 1, 93-102.

Strayer (2012) ‘How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation,’ Learning Environments Research.

McLaughlin, J. E., Roth, M. T., Glatt, D. M., Gharkholonarehe, N., Davidson, C. A., Griffin, L. M., Esserman, D. A. and Mumper, R. J. (2014) ‘The Flipped Classroom: A Course Redesign to Foster Learning and Engagement in a Health Professions School’, Academic Medicine, 89, 2, 236-243.

May was also an assignment month, focusing on the approaches and effectiveness of leading professional development. As per usual, this was grounded in the culture of higher education and the context of my role, so a few selected papers that informed my thinking are listed here:

Boud, D. and Brew, A. (2013) ‘Reconceptualising academic work as professional practice: implications for academic development’, International Journal for Academic Development, vol.18, no.3, pp.208-221.

Lynn Taylor, K. (2005) ‘Academic development as institutional leadership: An interplay of person, role, strategy, and institution’, International Journal for Academic Development, vol.10, no.1, pp.31-46.

Middlehurst, R. (1993) Leading Academics, Buckingham, Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Rowland, S. (2001) ‘Surface learning about teaching in higher education: The need for more critical conversation’, International Journal for Academic Development, vol.6, no.2, pp.162-167.

Thomson, K. (2015) ‘Informal conversations about teaching and their relationship to a formal development program: learning opportunities for novice and mid-career academics’, International Journal for Academic Development, vol.20, no.2, pp.137-149.

Needless to say, I’ve now subscribed to the International Journal for Academic Development.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.