E-submission workshops summer 2016

esubmission long

In support of the University’s e-submission policy for the academic year 2016-17 the eLearning Unit will be running a number of e-submission and marking workshop days over the summer and into the new academic year. Dates and sessions that are currently available are listed below followed by full descriptors. September dates to follow. We are also receiving many requests for school and departmental workshops, particularly for September 2016, so if you are considering training or consultancy from the team for e-submission and marking processes and systems, please do get in touch as soon as possible.

To book onto any session please contact the EdDev office (eddev@liv.ac.uk).

Wednesday 20th July

  • Session 1: “An introduction to electronic submission of coursework” (09:30 – 11:30)
  • Session 2: “The Turnitin Assignment tool for e-submission (part 1) and GradeMark for feedback (part 2)” (12:00 – 2pm)
  • Session 3: “The Blackboard Assignment tool for e-submission (Part 1) and feedback (Part 2)” (2:30 – 4pm)

Wednesday 17th August

  • Session 1: “An introduction to electronic submission of coursework” (09:30 – 11:30)
  • Session 2: “The Turnitin Assignment tool for e-submission (part 1) and GradeMark for feedback (part 2)” (12:00 – 2pm)
  • Session 3: “The Blackboard Assignment tool for e-submission (Part 1) and feedback (Part 2)” (2:30 – 4pm)

Full details

Session: An introduction to electronic submission of coursework

(Please note this is not a lab-based session). The University is moving to online submission for coursework assignments (see this blog post for more detail on policy). To help staff get an overview of the available tools, understand associated current issues, and plan your own approach to e-submission the eLearning Unit offer this session comparing and discussing the two tools in VITAL for electronic submission, the Blackboard assignment tool and Turnitin.

In this two hour session we will look at:

  • An overview of e-submission in Higher Education and at Liverpool, including the student view
  • A discussion of attendees’ current practice
  • Analysis and examples of the two available assignment submission tools, Blackboard Assignment and Turnitin Assignments and the linked tools available for each.
  • Institutional guidance and key issues for planning assignment submission ‘workflows’.
  • Follow-up support and guidance.

Session: Turnitin Assignment tool for e-submission (part 1) and GradeMark for feedback (part 2)

This practical session runs in two parts. After a quick recap of the key differences between Turnitin and Blackboard we will firstly look at the different ways in which the Turnitin Assignment tool can be set up for online assignment submission (part 1 – 45 minutes approx). Then in the optional second part (45 minutes approx) we will try out the GradeMark feedback facilities available, from Criteria marking sheets to inline comments, both in desktop and mobile versions. If you would like to try out the mobile version of the grading tool please could you bring your device. This is available for iOS devices only at the moment and can be found here: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/turnitin/id657602524?mt=8

Session: The Blackboard Assignment tool for e-submission (part 1) and feedback (part 2)

This practical session runs in two parts. After a quick recap of the key differences between Turnitin and Blackboard we will firstly look at the different ways in which the Blackboard Assignment tool can be set up for online assignment submission (part 1 – 45 minutes approx). Then in the optional second part (45 minutes approx) we will try out the grading facilities available, from Criteria marking sheets to inline comments, both in desktop and mobile versions.

Please contact the team if you have any questions about these sessions.

Dan

Summer School June 2016

From Arthur Radebaugh’s ‘Closer Than We Think’ series for the Chicago Tribune. A student of the future works from home. 1960.

This year’s e-learning summer school is running from Wednesday 8th to Friday 17th June with introductory and specialised sessions on some of the key tools and facilities in VITAL.

As well as many of our regular sessions we have some new workshops, a number of which are aimed at supporting the University’s policy on electronic submission. These run on Thursday 16th June and include:

  • An introduction to electronic submission of coursework
  • The Turnitin Assignment tool for e-submission (part 1) and GradeMark for feedback (part 2)
  • The Blackboard Assignment tool for e-submission (part 1) and feedback (part 2)

We are also offering a new, introductory session on using Twitter in HE:

  • An introduction to Twitter in Higher Education

and supporting the University’s lecture capture systems and strategy we are once again running the session:

  • Stream Capture for screencasting and lecture capture

The complete schedule follows below. This year, for bookings please email eddev @ liv.ac.uk if there are any sessions you want to attend. Full descriptions for each session are available on the CLL booking page here. You can also book from this page, but please bear in mind that this year bookings are being managed by email, so clicking the ‘book here’ link generates an email with the subject filled in with the workshop you want to attend.

2016 Summer School Schedule

Wednesday 8th June (10:00 – 11:30) – VITAL Essentials – Entry-level guide to using VITAL also covering the VITAL Baseline, copyright and accessibility.

Wednesday 8th June (14:00 – 16:00) – An introduction to technology-enhanced learning – Looks at the technologies we have available centrally at Liverpool, their applications for learning and teaching, and highlights policy, strategy and guidelines relating to TEL. Reflect on your digital capabilities and that of your students within the context of your own discipline.

Monday 13th June (14:00 – 16:00) – An introduction to Twitter in Higher Education – This session will provide an overview of the tool, demonstrate examples of how it is used in teaching to support learning, event hashtags and sharing of information.

Tuesday 14th June (10:00 – 11:00) –  Introducing the VITAL Discussion Board – Short practical session on the uses of the VITAL Discussion Board.

Tuesday 14th June (14:00 – 15:30) – Introducing VITAL journals and blogs – How these related tools can be used for private reflective work and for module communications.

Wednesday 15th June (14:00 – 16:00) – Wikis for collaborative groupwork – Looking at the Campus Pack wiki tool and its uses for groupwork. 

Thursday 16th June (10 – 11:30) – An introduction to electronic submission of coursework – To help staff get an overview of the available tools, understand associated current issues, and plan your own approach to e-submission the eLearning Unit offer this session comparing and discussing the two tools in VITAL for electronic submission, the Blackboard assignment tool and Turnitin.

Thursday 16th June (12 – 13:30) – The Turnitin Assignment tool for e-submission (part 1) and GradeMark for feedback (part 2)  – A practical session looking at how you set up and manage coursework submissions through the Turnitin Assignment tool (part 1) and how you can offer feedback electronically (part 2) using GradeMark. Stay for either or both parts of this session.

Thursday 16th June (14:00 – 15:30) – The Blackboard Assignment tool for e-submission (part 1) and feedback (part 2) – A practical session looking at how you set up and manage coursework submissions through the Blackboard Assignment tool (part 1) and how you can offer feedback electronically (part 2) using Inline Grader. Stay for either or both parts of this session.

Friday 17th June (10:00 – 12:00) – Stream Capture for screencasting, lecture capture and podcasting – Key concepts, practical considerations, examples and case studies, and how Stream Capture can be used in this context.

All of the workshops are listed on our booking site linked to here.

The main pre-requisite for the summer school sessions (apart from the introductory workshops) is that you are familiar with VITAL and using its main facilities, but please contact us if you want to discuss the suitability of any of the sessions. You are welcome to book on as many sessions as you wish, although we would ask that if you find yourself unable to attend to unenrol as soon as possible.

Please also remember that we are able to run tailored workshops for schools and departments (with a minimum of five attendees). Get in touch with the eLearning Unit to discuss this option.

Dan

April workshops 2016

We have a few workshops running in April which are listed below with summaries of what the sessions will cover. If you would like to book on any of these please contact the Ed Dev office (you will find the contact details here).

  • Wednesday 13th April (13:00 – 14:30) VITAL Essentials
    • This is a short, practical, entry-level guide to using VITAL also covering the VITAL Baseline, copyright and key information about how our VLE is set up.
  • Thursday 14th April (10:00 – 12:00) An Introduction to technology enhanced learning
    • The session introduces the technologies we have available centrally at Liverpool, their applications for learning and teaching, and highlights policy, strategy and guidelines relating to TEL. The session asks you to reflect on your practice with and understanding of learning technology within the context of your own discipline.
  • Tuesday 26th April (10:00 -12:00) – Stream Capture for screencasting, lecture capture and podcasting. 
    • Key concepts, practical considerations, examples and case studies, and how Stream Capture can be used in these contexts.

We also have some exciting ideas for new sessions during the rest of the academic term and for our Summer School.

We’ll publish full details of these soon but we are planning to include sessions on Twitter for HE, e-submission and marking tools, lecture capture, communication tools, Wikipedia and more.

Dan

VLE minimum standards evaluation – looking around

This second post to stem from our VITAL Baseline evaluation work this year tells some of the story about looking outwards to the sector for policy seeking to understand best-practice around minimum standards for VLEs.

As a part of our original work developing the VITAL baseline the working group thought it would be useful to see what, if anything, was happening with VLE minimum standards across the HE sector at that point in time. With a pressing timescale and clear directive that a) we had to have a standard and b) of what it should consist this time round, the most we could look at was who had some kind of minimum standard or expectation for their VLE and what was in it, so get some simple benchmarks and reassure ourselves that we hadn’t missed anything that we could include whilst we had this opportunity to shape our own set of standards at the development stage. As a low-cost way (for us) of gathering some rough and ready data a call went out to the ALT mailing list asking people to contribute to a Google Sheet to say whether their institution had any kind of minimum standard or expectation, or were looking to develop one, and what was in it. As a group we didn’t engage at any further level with this work (although one of us, Peter Reed, wrote up and presented some of his own analysis of the original data at a few conferences and usergroups for which you can find an entry point to here). I had always hoped to return to this work with some questions I had about the sector-wide landscape as a part of any evaluation and that what I learnt from this exercise would also inform any recommendations we would make for future development of the standard. The main areas I want now to examine are:

  • In terms of the original data gathered we should re-examine what we can understand from this. I was anxious about how crowdsourced data stands up and what the implications were of this approach for an evaluation so would like to review this methodology in some detail as well. 
  • I wondered what results we would get if we more closely defined the group(s) of institutions against which we wanted to benchmark and actively approach these. I felt at the time that the original data might encourage a view that minimum standards policies were a standard feature of the topography of Technology Enhanced Learning strategies and policies in HEIs and I wanted to test this. 
  • Then as well as asking who has a standard and what is in it the more interesting questions would include why one exists for that institution, how is its rationale contextualised (e.g. is this linked to a learning and teaching strategy?), what kinds of processes were involved in its development, is it compulsory and has any evaluation taken place?
  • For those institutions who don’t have one, what is the story, if there is one, here?
  • Beyond approaching institutions we would look at any literature, conference proceedings, blog posts and mailing list discussions around minimum standards as a part of the evaluation work more generally but specifically for this information about why institutions do or do not have a VLE baseline.

In picking this work up again for our Baseline evaluation project I thought an obvious although simplistic initial sampling strategy would be to survey the rest of the Russell group which would make for a manageable, quick desk-based web-search. I looked for what could be discovered from the websites of the Russell Group institutions for any indication of an institutional VLE standard in place and what further detail was available publicly. A first-glance review found that in December 2015:

  • Six definitely have an institutional standard with compulsory/required/expected elements.
  • Three offer institutionally recommended good practice guidance.
  • Fourteen seemed to have no institutional standard requirement or expectation.
  • For one institution I couldn’t find any detail one way or another.

I’ve collated a list with details of what each standard or recommendation above consists but one immediate thought on the above is that there might well be standards at faculty or school/departmental level where there is no institutional requirement. It would be useful to uncover this information as my own feeling is that handing over standards to more local levels is probably the way to move in the future, which we’ll discuss in a later post on any recommendations that emerge from our evaluation work. 

Also immediately what we would want to do next is to contact institutions directly and try to confirm whether what we have found accurately reflects their situation and to get a little more detail on the whys and hows as listed above in this post (and we’ll also first need to look into ethical approval around this if we are intending to publish our results) and if there might be more local standards that aren’t found on central websites and I’ll make this list available when it is as complete as possible.

Another question this simple snapshot of Russell Group institutions raises for me is whether Liverpool is leading in this area, as we appear to be in the minority here, or alternatively whether we were late-arrivers to the debate around minimum standards and have taken a different direction to the majority? Obviously the snapshot view is unconfirmed and looking at a bigger group of institutions would give better data but as I began to discuss in the first Baseline evaluation post we want to look at the evidence used that informed the decision to make this one of the first initiatives to comprise our institutional TEL strategy to assess its strengths and its limits. Does this snapshot view tell a contrasting story to that of other sources of evidence used to develop TEL strategy and the Baseline originally? Are there any similarities between Liverpool and the other Russell group institutions that have a standard in place? I’d be interested to discover the extent to which minimum standards policies feature in Technology Enhanced Learning strategies and policies in HEIs when measured in a larger sample group. Thinking further about the sample group I wondered whether we should follow this 2014 UCISA report and look at all pre-92 institutions for a greater mix of institution types and with time post-92 institutions. More work but valuable for developing our understanding.

In a similar fashion to that of the original Baseline development representing an opportunity to look at some of the internal evidence of the ways in which the VLE is being used within the institution, this outward-looking work also offered the opportunity to richly inform our thinking and strategic approach by looking to the sector and the experience and evidence here. We want to assess the extent these sources of evidence were exploited in the original development and how they could be in the future as part of our recommendations for any future institutional TEL initiatives.

As an almost tangential sign-off, when thinking about what I’d write for this post I realised that I have been using the terms ‘benchmark’ and ‘benchmarking’ unthinkingly. Then I panicked, what are they and why would you want to do this? This panic didn’t last long as found this useful-looking JISC resource what is benchmarking? If anyone knows more about this guide we’d appreciate your thoughts and advice but I think I am going to use it for writing up this sector scene-setting aspect of our evaluation work.

Dan

VLE minimum standards & consistencies – introducing the VITAL Baseline evaluation

This is the first in a series of posts on the evaluation work the eLearning Unit is conducting this academic year, investigating the institutional impact of our VLE module standard, the VITAL Baseline, amongst staff and students. We’ll begin by introducing some of the background and some thinking about what we want to evaluate. As Christmas is close adjacent to writing this I’m unashamedly also going to somehow try and stir up a mildly seasonal metaphor – cake mixtures and consistencies – which might rise and fall over the course of the post. This is not going to be entirely awkwardly folded-in because a key idea that crops up repeatedly is the notion of consistency of provision. The eLearning Unit played a significant role in the development, implementation and promotion (weighing, mixing and baking?) of the Baseline, and so one year in to its full roll-out we are keen to find out how it is has been received.

The VITAL Baseline is the University of Liverpool’s standard for all modules in our VLE (VITAL) which we launched for the academic year 2014-15. The VITAL Baseline is six key areas of content and information students would most like to see in all modules. You can read about it in more detail hereget a ‘How to’ guide here and watch our students describe what it is and why they value it here. The initial impetus came from the student body and concerns that there was uneven use of the VLE across the institution so that some modules were highly developed whilst others might have very little or nothing in them. The Guild of Students’ report ‘Make the Most of I.T.’ (2013) made the following recommendation, based on survey and focus group data:

Policy Recommendation 1: The University of Liverpool pass and implement a policy requiring all academic modules to have a presence on VITAL with agreed material available through it. This material should remain accessible for students throughout the course of their degree. At the most basic level this should include: i. A presence of all modules on VITAL ii. Module specification uploaded to VITAL iii. Lecture notes uploaded to VITAL iv. Reading lists uploaded to VITAL v. Past exam papers uploaded to VITAL where appropriate

It would have been useful at this point to have made an institutional evaluation of practice around the VLE. This would have provided benchmarking detail on the ways and the actual extent to which staff were using VITAL modules before the Baseline was introduced, and also where there appeared to be no or little engagement with this online space, why not, whether staff were using other tools and why. We might also have gained valuable information on interesting and scalable good practice and this kind of benchmarking is definitely something to recommend for future TEL initiatives at the institutional level. Unfortunately we do not have the resource to tackle this retrospectively although we are thinking about at least a sampling strategy to see what was happening in modules before the Baseline arrived. It might also be a question for our focus groups/interviews whether any staff felt that they had examples of their own good practice overlooked at the time which could have been part of the thinking about the Baseline mix.

In response to the Guild report, the VITAL Baseline was one of the first major steps for the University’s then-new (2013) Technology Enhanced Learning strategy, and probably the most visible so far. Interestingly VITAL modules have had a default template since the introduction of the VLE ten years ago and this suggested a basic structure and content to include, not vastly dissimilar to the new standard, with the accompanying rationale being a relative freedom in the way that the VLE was used (within the limits of the systems) and this suggested structure was as open as possible to reflect that freedom. A policy focus on formalising a standard basic structure to be met in all modules and communicating this expectation to the institution was a positive, useful and timely process. One interesting piece of work here is to map the previous template and its rationale against the new Baseline standard and its rationale and examine the points of difference and whether these signal a shift in the ways that the VLE is viewed institutionally and further whether such a shift (if it exists) trickles down to staff and students or meets the pre-existing attitudes of both groups. The current University TEL strategy (2013) states:

“As we develop new and innovative approaches to structuring technology enhanced learning, it is clear that students would value consistent use of VITAL across all modules that they study and they need to feel that they are getting a similar experience to their friends studying on other programmes. This could be seen as part of the contract that the University is developing with current and potential students, describing minimum standards in the use of VITAL.”

I think we need to look carefully at what might be the underlying assumptions about what the space in a VLE means in both rationales. Is there a view of the VLE that it is a functional, administrative space in which student-defined expectations can and should be met and is there a view that the VLE is just one tool with innovative or useful pedagogic potential from the range of which teaching staff can deploy as they see suits their requirements? Are these views opposed or even false extrapolations from the stated rationales? I would want to find out from staff whether they felt that a Baseline came down on one side or another or if this simply isn’t an issue. Is it the case that something like a Baseline was always waiting to burst out of the specific VLE system that we use, given the structures and activities it appears most obviously to support? That is, has it always encouraged a particular way of thinking about teaching with learning technology by its design and its toolset? For staff who have not previously engaged with the VLE, for whatever reasons, now that is there an expectation to fulfil a certain level of engagement with the VLE is there an underlying or implicit pedagogical model determined by a standard like this which fixes their view about how learning technologies can be designed into their learning and teaching practice? If there is an implied underlying model does it in some subtle way set a course for the institution’s view of learning and teaching more generally? There have been attempts to alternatively frame such standards in customer satisfaction terms but is this to undersell or miss the pedagogic implications and can we find any evidence of this? Also, we need to look at the individual elements of the Baseline and what they represent in part and in whole in terms of a way of thinking and acting in the VLE space.

I’ve drifted waywardly but I hope not uninterestingly from the starting point of this post, and abandoned any metaphorical acrobatics, perhaps mercifully. I’ve tried to begin rummaging around the notion of “consistency” given its prominence in the rationale charging the VITAL Baseline. What is this particular kind of consistency, what is its value and desirability? Is it constrained to comprising certain information components or is it encouraging a consistency of thinking about and designing learning with technologies including the VLE? These questions are one small part of the evaluation work we hope to carry out but in many ways they will be the most critical when considering what the future shape any Baseline should take and to unearth the full impact of this new approach to the VLE.

Dan

eLU Winter School 2016

Update: an additional Stream Capture session has been scheduled in the Winter School week.

11th – 15th January 2016 – 7 sessions planned – full information and booking at the CLL Booking Website here.

Nellie, the classroom computer of the future (BBC Tomorrow’s World http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0154hns)

The schedule for our 2016 Winter School is finalised and ready to book with the following sessions available. Please note there are now two Stream Capture sessions running due to the high levels of interest in this workhop. Each title is a clickable link to full details and booking page.

  • Mon 11th Jan 2-4pm – Wikis for collaborative group work – Looking at the Campus Pack wiki tool and its uses for groupwork
  • Tues 12th Jan 2- 4pm – Stream Capture for screencasting, lecture capture and podcasting – key concepts, practical considerations, examples and case studies, and how Stream Capture can be used in this context
  • Weds 13th Jan 10-11:30amVITAL Essentials – Entry-level guide to using VITAL also covering the VITAL Baseline, copyright and accessibility
  • Weds 13th Jan 2-4pmAn introduction to Technology Enhanced Learning – Introduces the technologies we have available centrally at Liverpool, their applications for learning and teaching, and highlights policy, strategy and guidelines relating to TEL. The session asks you to reflect on your practice with and understanding of learning technology within the context of your own discipline and some suggested learning technology frameworks.
  • Thurs 14th Jan 10-11amOne hour GradeMark – Short practical session on using this grading and feedback tool in Turnitin
  • Thurs 14th Jan 2-4pmTurnitin assignments and Originality Reports – How originality reports are produced and how to read them.
  • NEW, ADDITIONAL SESSION: Fri 15th Jan 10am-12pmStream Capture for screencasting, lecture capture and podcasting – key concepts, practical considerations, examples and case studies, and how Stream Capture can be used in this context

As well as these scheduled sessions, we will be happy to run these or other workshops for schools, departments and faculties on many aspects of e-learning and learning enhanced technology by request. Please do approach us about any of your e-learning/VITAL training needs.

Studio Wednesdays

Please also remember our ask-us-anything ‘Studio Wednesday’ drop-in session, running every Wednesday afternoon between 1:30pm and 5pm. Full details on this drop-in are available here.

VITAL Baseline support

Remember that the VITAL module ‘VITAL Baseline and guidance’ includes full online support on meeting the VITAL Baseline.

The eLearning Network meets again!

VOTAscreenshot2

The first eLearning Network meeting of the new academic year continued the traditions of last years gatherings: an encouraging and engaged interest group; sharing and discussion of practice from all areas of the University; a look at new services and software applications in development; standing-room only! Increasingly people are also staying on after the main meeting to continue the discussions sparked in the room and to catch up with colleagues from other schools and departments, which is another real strength of this network. Join us! Here’s a flavour of what we covered this time.

Lu Mello and Pete Alston – supporting internships and placements

Whilst this was the final presentation of the meeting it was a great example of what the network meetings do so well, sharing practice and exchanging ideas around how technologies can be deployed and their value in different learning and teaching contexts. Lu discussed how, working with Pete Alston, they had looked in Life Sciences to PebblePad as a way of a) more effectively managing the administration of the ever-increasing number of their students on one year placements or six-week internships abroad and in the UK, and b) more importantly they were looking to formalise and improve the quality of the reflective report writing and associated evidence-gathering required of the students.

With smaller numbers in previous years much of the administrative and student reporting and reflection on placements and internships had been handled through emails. This was leading to too much variety in the reports and sometimes poor reflection, and email was not a strong evidence-gathering tool. PebblePad offered a means by which to build a far more structured environment for the students which demanded quality reflection on the skills they are learning. PebblePad also formalised deadlines for students reporting and the feedback they could expect. Students really valued the system as they felt looked-after whilst away from campus but Pebblepad by itself was not enough and a good deal of preparatory work with the students and the staff was needed. All of this contributed to students feeling very positive with high engagement in the process, every single student completing their reflective reporting every week within the context of other close support mechanisms from Skye calls and emails to site visits.

Gordon Sandison – Library Copyright Guidance – Digitisation

Gordon, the University library’s licensing manager, started off this term’s session with news of a just-published online resource from the library on copyright (and click here for the Information for teachers page which includes VITAL and lecture capture advice). This is very searchable, thorough and includes advice on many aspects of copyright, with extensive help on digital resources, including lecture capture.

Gordon also highlighted that the library’s new digitisation service has been formally launched. If you have a journal article or extract from a text that you want to include on VITAL for example, and if it doesn’t exist electronically in the library, then rather than scanning this yourself and going through the CLA process to make sure it clears our copyright requirements, simply ask the library to do this for you and include it on your Reading List @ Liverpool list. There’s plenty of guidance on the digitisation service here, it will save you a lot of time so please do use it.

Duncan Brown and Alan Brown – a view of VOTA polling app

Classroom polling technologies have been high up on many people’s teaching wishlists for a long time. There are lots of services out there from older-style clickers to web-based systems like Poll Everywhere but nothing is currently provided by the University centrally so schools and departments have been purchasing and subscribing to services as needed. Encouragingly Duncan and Alan from CSD gave us a look at and a try out of a beta version of a polling application, VOTA, currently in development. The project has come out of the team’s interest in exploring the potential of HTML5 websockets so is more of a technology-led than a learning and teaching led development at the moment. Once it’s ready, and further features will include embedding live polls into PowerPoint slides, it will be made available as a simple polling tool that will scale up to use for large cohorts so will be a fantastic entry-level tool for someone to try out this kind of technology in their learning and teaching. Given that there are other more sophisticated polling tools that exist there are no plans to develop VOTA beyond the simple tool we saw in the session. However there was a lot of interest in the prospect of a centrally-available polling system and the discussion in the room was around whether the basic system could be developed in time to do something different to that which Poll Everywhere etc could do and model some different interactions that would be directly relevant to Liverpool staff. A very positive discussion and there is exciting potential here.

Duncan Brown – Stream Capture feedback

Duncan has been the lead developer of our Stream Capture system and we had an informal discussion with him around its development which was an excellent opportunity to feed back on our experiences to date and have an influence on the direction in which the system is being built. An extremely useful tip worth sharing here on how the Stream Capture settings are managed (recording preferences, save to drive etc.) is that your account settings follow you around rather than you needing to reset them whenever you are in a different room.

That’s a very quick round-up and we hope that it persuades you to come along, so we look forward to seeing you at the next meeting which will be on Thursday 28th January 2016 and you can book here nearer the time. We also hope to hear from you and what you would like bring along so if you want to join the mailing list and be notified when the booking opens please contact the eLearning Unit.

Dan