LTC13-P55
31 October 2013
Minimum Presence Update to LTC 31st October 2013
Background

In 2012 a new ‘Minimum Module Online Presence’ was agreed by the Elearning Advisory Group (ELAG) and LTC, replacing the previous version which
had been in place since 2008. The new version introduced modest additional
requirements, notably around the use of the University Reading List System, the
General Announcements feature, and contact details. Between August and
early October 2012 the Teaching Centre E-learning team audited every taught
module on Learn11.

During May 2013, the Teaching Centre staff audited every taught module again,
excluding those with 5 or fewer students currently enrolled. The criteria had
changed slightly following discussions at LTC earlier in the year, with the
requirement for contact details having been removed.

The report back to LTC on June (LTC13-P33) highlighted areas of good
practice, areas of concern and areas needing urgent attention. There had been
a significant overall improvement, with some exemplary modules in most
Schools, and better use of the module noticeboard and the University reading
list system. The report also noted that where the compliance rate was low, for
most departments it would be significantly higher if modules where there was
only a single point of non-compliance were passed.
Follow-up to May 13 audit

There has, over the last 6 months, been much more publicity around the
minimum presence policy. This has included communications from the ADTs
and from the Teaching Centre, via mechanisms including the Learn front page
and regular Staffroom General Announcements (which are sent to all module
tutors).

We have also produced and distributed a ‘What’s New in Learn’ leaflet which
included on the back the basic steps in complying with minimum presence
requirements. This has been well received.

Since September 11th, the E-learning Team have put on more than 20 drop-in
Learn / minimum presence sessions around the campus (including 3 online, via
Adobe Connect web conferencing). The locations have in most cases been
foyers (Martin Hall, Brockington, Chem Eng, Frank Gibb) with regular
throughput of academic staff.

Attendance overall at these sessions has been low, ranging from 0-8. It may be
that academic colleagues in general now feel that they are more familiar with
Learn itself (although there were some changes over the summer, these were
less extensive than the previous year) and with the minimum presence
requirements. Certainly there have been fewer support cases coming in to
learn@lboro.ac.uk than a year ago.

It should also be noted that the question of how best to reach out to academic
staff with staff development in the use of learning technologies is one that elearning teams across the sector are currently considering. Other Heads of Elearning report that take-up of central scheduled events has dropped over the
last couple of years.

Our experience is that the best staff development sessions around learning
technologies are bespoke sessions for individual departments or programme
teams. Those attending often have similar needs, concerns and queries, and
we can present examples in context. So, for instance, in a recent session for
the tutors on the University-Wide Language Programme, participants were
shown how to add RSS feeds from French-language newspapers to their
module pages, which it would not have been appropriate to do in a generic
session.

There has previously been discussion around the possibility of a mandatory
Learn training session for module tutors and, while this is unlikely to happen, we
have now added an ‘Introduction to Learn’ section to the New Lecturers’ Course
Induction Day focusing on the minimum presence requirements.
Next audit

We plan to audit modules again in May 2014. The reason for choosing this point
in the year is that, by then, it is reasonable to assume that all Semester 1 and
Semester 2 modules should have been updated.

It has been suggested that the audit could be done as a sampling exercise to
reduce the workload, but there are benefits to looking over all modules. We
have a better idea of how Learn is being used across the board. Moreover, as
module tutors change, there is no guarantee that a module that passed in one
audit will pass in the next.

Given the sustained publicity around minimum presence this year, it seems
likely that the compliance rate will be much higher next time. In the meantime,
Teaching Centre e-learning staff are happy to collaborate with ADTs and
Teaching and Learning Co-ordinators in providing targeted support to individual
staff in order to ensure the best results, and this has already been happening in
some areas.
Further development of the Minimum Presence policy

The current minimum presence document already includes a section entitled
‘Beyond the minimum presence’, which makes it clear that the minimum
presence requirements are a baseline and that staff are strongly encouraged to
make us of other features of Learn, and other centrally supported systems
(ReVIEW, Turnitin, Grademark, etc), as appropriate.

Whether the minimum presence itself (as a set of requirements against which
Minimum Presence Update to LTC 31 Oct 2013
Page | 2
modules are audited) should develop further is debatable. The risk is that the
requirements might start to become, or be perceived as, too prescriptive.

It may be now that, as per the recommendations in LTC-P33, we should focus
now on incentivising staff to engage with Learn and other tools. The Student-led
Teaching Awards may offer an opportunity to do this.
Minimum Presence Update to LTC 31 Oct 2013
Page | 3