 over to Miranda. So welcome everybody to the CPT webinar session and I'm going to hand you over to Miranda. Hello, thank you for that lovely introduction. I'm going to assume that everyone can hear me at the minute. So welcome to today's webinar. Thank you all for joining us as we talk about what students want from digital accessibility, a case delete from King's College London. So things are perhaps going to be a little bit unusual. I don't share my screen. I don't share slides. Instead, all the information you're going to need to follow along, the equivalent of slides, is in a Google Doc, which I've just popped into the chat. If you've just joined, it's in the purplish pink chevron towards the bottom right of the screen. You can access the chat. And this is an anonymous way. I see a bunch of you already on the Google Doc. It's anonymous, which is great. And there's a few reasons I do this. First of all, it means that because I'm not sharing my screen, I can actually see the chat as we go along. So you don't have to wait till the end to pop a question in. If you've got a question, go ahead and just pop it in the chat. I may not get to it till the end, but I'll definitely be able to keep track of them. This is also if I'm going too quickly or you want something explained. This is a great way to ensure that everyone can participate, regardless of whether you've got a camera or a microphone. Additionally, this way, you don't have to wait till the end of the session to get the slides. So if you want to download the document yourself now, you should be able to download it and make notes on it straight away. So hopefully at the end of the session, you don't have to do some extra work. And if you have any particular accessibility requirements, you can download the document now and change it to suit whatever your needs are. So you don't have to wait for me to make it bigger or smaller. You can do all of that yourself. So I generally use Google Docs. It does make it a little bit odd because I'm just sort of staring at myself on a blank screen, but hopefully this allows people to engage. So today's presentation is focusing on some surveys and focus groups that were conducted in November and December of last year at King's College London around digital accessibility. So as we all know, we had to move to online learning quite quickly at the last year. And in response to that, King's, as with many universities, decided that we needed to update and standardize our policies on digital accessibility across the university. So on page two of the Google Doc, we've got a little bit of background for you to fully understand the session. So I am a representative. I'm speaking today as a member of the Digital Accessibility Task and Finishing Group, which was set up as a college-wide interdisciplinary voluntary committee of people from all over the institution, faculty members, professional services of various types, to try and sort out what should our digital accessibility policy be within King's. And our particular remit is Keats, which is, I honestly do not remember what it stands for, but it's King's versions of Moodle. So it's called Keats. That's what everyone knows as. So the language you'll see throughout this session calls it Keats, but you must all be quite familiar with Moodle at this point. That's just our particular name for it. And so the Digital Accessibility Group is focused on how do we make Keats accessible and what are our standards going to be? So the way that this worked is the committee worked together to come up with a long draft of the protocol, the policy, and we call this the baseline. So this is the baseline standard for digital accessibility on Keats. But we wanted to make sure that this actually represented what the stakeholders at King's actually wanted and needed. So we organized three feedback efforts. One to ask students what they thought of this potential baseline, this draft. One to ask academic staff who would be mostly the ones in charge of implementing these standards. And then also our technology and educational learning staff who would be the ones training academics on how to implement these things. So we have three parallel feedback efforts to make sure and assess what this draft looked like before obviously rolling it out and making it standards. So today I'm going to be talking about the student part of that feedback, how we ran the student feedback, what did students actually say. That was in November, December. Since then getting the other two sets of feedback, we've adapted the baseline, the draft baseline. And we are now preparing it for its full launch from June through the Education Conference that King's Academy, so within King's, is putting on in June. So that will be the sort of soft launch probably of the baseline. Ready ahead of full implementation next academic year. So during to preempt the inevitable question, during this session, I'm not going to be giving you the baseline as we currently have drafted it in full. But I can talk about in broad strokes, one of the things we're looking at, one of the things we're doing both before we talk to students and in response to that feedback effort. So hopefully we now got some good background. And we can move on to page three of the Google doc if you're following along that way and talk about the methodology. So the goal was to get 20 students as representative across the 11 different faculties of Kings, to respond in order to participate in focus groups. That was our goal. We wanted to have four focus groups, about five students each to read through the draft baseline document and give us their feedback. So we developed an advertisement that went out through Kings Talent Bank, which is our way of students signing up for part-time jobs. Students were to be paid 20 pound to turn up to this focus group. And we sent out the advertisement through the general Kings Talent Bank newsletter. And in each of the 11 faculties sent out as a blurb in their faculty level newsletter, we were aiming to get 20 students to respond, hopefully over about two weeks. And then at the end of two weeks, hopefully we'd have 20 students. In fact, what happened instead was that four days in to this advertisement going out, we had 540 students respond, which was beyond our wildest dreams. And what was interesting is the way that they had to respond was through a very simple application form that had a required question of why do you want to be selected for this effort? And what we perhaps expected was, well, this seems like an easy thing. I bet a lot of them probably want 20 pound. And sure enough, there were plenty of responses in that vein. On the other hand, there were also a shocking number of students who explicitly said, I really care about digital accessibility. I really care about inclusivity. And I want to be part of this in any way I can. And that was really interesting when the number of students saying that literally rose above 100. And so what we quickly realized was that we had tapped into a need from students that was much, much bigger than we had first expected. So we did only have the funding to pay for 20 students. So we selected 20 students to participate in the four focus groups. Of course, because so many had applied, we were able to make it as representative as possible if you can only have 20 spots. But then we didn't want to do nothing with the other 520 students who clearly were engaged. So we designed a second survey that was aimed at essentially asking pretty much all the same questions. In fact, going through the baseline document in detail. And in fact, that second survey was 48 questions long. It was quite substantial. We really did want to go through it in depth. And we sent that out to the 520 students who had not been selected. Now, because this was unexpected, we didn't have funding. We didn't really have a lot of ways of getting that second survey out. So it did not go out through faculty newsletters. It did not get put on a big database like King's Talent Bank. In fact, it was just directly emailed to the 520 people twice. And yet, despite the fear of it getting buried in students emails, we actually still had 130 students respond to this 48 question unpaid survey, which was massive. We additionally had 19 out of the 20 students ended up attending the focus groups. So the rest of this data and analysis and feedback from the students is a combination of that 19 students in the focus groups, along with 130 in the second survey. Because they all answered the same questions that were different, mainly only in phrasing, we have combined both sets of data when it comes to the numbers, though the qualitative data quotations are either from comments that people wrote into the survey or from the focus groups throughout. So it was pretty amazing to get that kind of response. Also, obviously a lot more work than we expected. So I've just gone over pages three and four of the Google doc if you're following along that way. So one reason just as a slight detour that we thought the surveys got such a response was first, because students are actually not that often asked about sort of institutional structural aspects of their university experience, such as Keats, the thing that everyone uses all the time, the Moodle. How can we make it better for you? There's actually not a lot of ways, at least at King's, maybe at other universities it's different. And there's actually not a lot of ways that students get to give feedback on those sorts of things. Usually it's sort of an IT fault if X is not working, please fix it, rather than asking for general feedback. So I think part of what we tapped into was students really want to tribute and be part of this and there just aren't that many opportunities. Another thing that I think made an impact on the numbers is just the same sort of way that I talked about Google docs at the beginning of this session. There were a number of actions that we took to make sure that the surveys, both of them, the initial recruitment one and the second big survey, were designed to be very inclusive. My research or part of my research focuses a lot on students with learning differences, disabilities or neurodiversity. And that is a lot of the angle that I took in designing these surveys. So on page five of the Google doc, I'm just going to briefly talk through a few examples of ways that I think and feedback from students suggests that the inclusive design of the surveys made a difference in getting such a great response from students. So first of all, in the initial blurb of all of the surveys, we explained survey participation in terms of topic areas and level of effort. So there's an example in the first box on page five of the Google doc of what the actual language that we used. And the reason that I think this made a really big impact is that it allowed students to know exactly what they would and would not have to do. So if you're a student that has a lot of demands on their time, as most students are, it helps to have this upfront information going, Oh, actually, that seems quite manageable. I can do this. Whereas if you don't know that you kind of have to do a bit of guessing and depending on your level of anxiety, depending on your level of confidence, you may or may not want to do that. The second thing we did was we again provided clarity about effort and expectations. So this was about the focus group. We made it very clear in the recruitment, when you are signing up for this opportunity, when you're putting yourself forward for it, here is what you are potentially signing up for. We don't just want you to express interest and then we'll tell you whether or not, you know, what it entails. We're going to be very upfront so that a, you can best interact even if you generally have trouble signing up for these kinds of opportunities. But also it meant that it actually became very easy for us to choose people because we knew that everyone was aware of this coming in. And I do think that's why we had such high attendance of the focus groups. In fact, I was told, if you want 20 students to show up, you have to pick 30 because a bunch won't turn up. And I kind of, you know, maybe was a bit too stubborn about that, but picked only 20. And in fact, 19 turned up. And I think part of that was because we made it so clear ahead of time that it was easy for students to do that. Third, we enabled flexibility around scheduling, right? The idea was to have four focus groups. We didn't change the dates or times. We set them in advance. But we used the kind of language, again, that's on page five, to help people feel free to make a commitment, but adjust it as circumstance needs. And again, this is something that was quite easy to do. I didn't really care who turned up to which one. But just by being a little bit more explicit and clear about those expectations, I think that reduced a lot of kind of guilt and anxiety. And in fact, heard back from some of the focus group participants that it was this piece in particular around flexibility that enabled them to attend. Second to last one, anonymity was emphasized and explained with examples. My background is as an academic researcher. So I am used to putting in information sheets and confidentiality and GDPR and all of that. But quite often, you know, they're not actually necessarily that clearly explained what actually happens. And particularly for asking questions around disability and accessibility that are often quite stigmatized and fraught, we used language like this to make sure that participants really understood and could trust exactly what was and what was not happening to any information that they gave. And this is exactly the same principle in the last example at the bottom of page five that explains why we're asking these questions, who we want to answer and how you can participate, even if this isn't something you normally talk about. So these are the sorts of things we did on the surveys and focus groups. Again, based on student feedback, I think made a difference in getting such great numbers. But okay, enough about how we collected the feedback. Let's get straight on to what people actually said. And so on page seven, we've got the headline results of what student feedback overall was across all of these different mechanisms, which was that the current online experience for students at King's is one of actually really interesting, relevant and high quality content. There's not a content issue. And when we go talk to academics, this is something that we highlight. And actually it's quite reassuring and very empowering to a lot of people that the content that we're talking that they were teaching the programs that students signed up for really are living up to the hopes that students had for their education. However, the absolutely uniform feedback was that it is much harder to engage with all this interesting learning because of how poorly organized information was. And that was the key feedback from students across every type of degree and every faculty, whether it was about poor organization. It wasn't about lacking information, even on the technical side, right? The learning enhanced technology people had good information, it etc. So it wasn't about we don't know how to do X or there's no information available on why it was about it's too hard to find it all. It's too confusing to get from here to there. That was the thing that kept getting in students way. And I think that's really important to highlight because what was coming from the other two sets of feedback, the professional services and technology enhanced learning staff was we want to make sure that the content is all there. We want to make sure students have the tools to do online learning. And we're here for the academics is we want to make sure our content is engaging. And what students are coming back with is actually those two are pretty sorted. What's confusing is that that great information is organized in a different way on every single module on Keats is organized very confusingly between Keats and other aspects of King's online learning. And so it's really important to surface that this was the key pain point for students rather than perhaps what staff professional services and academic staff had assumed. On the other hand it was really positive because at the draft baseline that we put together they actually really liked because the entire focus on it is how do we make Keats easy to use. And not just from a technological point of view but from an organizational accessible point of view thinking about the learning experience in terms of universal design. So that was actually really positive and in fact we haven't had to make that many changes to that initial draft that students saw in order to hopefully make improvements that they'll like. So again more clarity was the thing and this was across all degrees. An interesting tangent that I'm happy to explore in questions of people are interested was around student responses to whether or not cameras should be used or required in live sessions. So happy to talk about what students said on that later if anyone would be interested. On page eight of the Google Doc these are some of the quotes that I picked out from the focus group and the surveys that really just kind of illustrated how students are feeling at this moment across as you can see multiple different faculties and degree types. It's really interesting to see that it's a lot more standardised the feedback is a lot more standardised than I honestly would have expected given how massive and diverse Kings is. Moving on to page nine, we've got the key improvement areas. So some of these are beyond the scope of our particular task and finishing group. So for those that are beyond the scope we have created an advocacy report to bring up to various other stakeholders within the university who are in charge of those specific pieces, because sadly not all of them are within our particular remit, but they wanted a centralised dash of what students wanted to do. But they wanted a centralised dashboard of events, deadlines, timetables and tasks. And I think that's really key because a lot of what again the expectation from the academics professional services was that what really matters is organisation within each module in an online system. But from a student perspective actually students don't engage with one module at a time. They don't take one module at a time. And so in fact it's also about moving between your two or three or four different modules and being able to actually effectively know what your deadline is for here versus your assignment over there without having to parse it through a different organisational method in each of those modules. And so that was a really key piece of learning that our digital accessibility team has taken forward, especially when we're working from September on implementing this is working not just in a module level but also to departmental level and a programme level to ensure that students within their programme see consistency. Now an important piece of this is obviously we don't think that there is such thing as one size fits all organisation and there are very different learning and teaching needs across different areas of research and teaching. So it's not about there's one policy, every Keats module has to be organised the same way across, you know, 27,000 students. But the key is that making sure it's consistent within student experience. So perhaps one faculty can do something different from another but within a faculty we want perhaps more standardisation within department perhaps more standardisation than we currently have. As I'm going through if you've got any questions or any clarification on anything, please go ahead and pop it in the chat. And then I'm we're I'm nearly done with all of my spiel and then we'll have time for discussion and questions as well. But if you do want to pop questions in the chat, please go ahead. So similarly, students wanted a consistent method of module organisation. So this is exactly what the baseline is designed to do in a number of ways. In terms of where information is posted, what kind of information has to be included on module pages. So that is exactly the sort of thing we're trying to fix. Abilities trees notifications when deadlines and assignments are uploaded rather than form notifications. So we're working with it on that clear information provided about assessment. This was a big issue. And again, goes way beyond necessarily our. But in fact, there's another working group that focuses on assessment. So we've been working closely with them. Lecture slides and PowerPoints private in advance of synchronous sessions. Streamlining the types of documents. So this was very much about it's really hard to get all the you have to get this from teams and that from email and that from Keats and that from another thing. So working improving the ability to go from Keats to other parts of the King's online environment. And then needing to have breaks during live sessions was another thing that students brought up from an accessibility point of view. So again, many of these things were beyond our initial ask or remit, but actually came across really clearly. Some of which were actually able to directly address, which is great. So one final point that I particularly wanted to highlight is just how much students actually really care about digital accessibility. 70% of the respondents. So again, this is across the whole group of 540 as they were asked to this exact question in the initial recruitment form in the focus group and in the second survey. 70% of respondents were interested in being contacted directly about the results of this effort. I was really surprised by that number. 42 respondents, 42% of respondents were interested in being contacted directly about captioning or transcription work in their faculty, regardless of whether it was paid. So a lot of what one of the things we asked about was about captioning and transcripts. That's a big part of the baseline effort. And one of the ideas that we're playing around with is having piloting work where it can help with doing the human side of captioning and transcription, perhaps after a machine has done it in order to fix it. In order to fix it up. And we had a really high number of students be interested in participating in those efforts, which was great. Similarly, 64% of respondents were interested in being contacted for future work in this area. And then a further 25% wanted to be contacted if it was paid. So again, the idea that this is not a one-off interest, that this is a continued commitment that students have is really, really, really important. So yeah, that pretty much takes me through what I had prepared to tell you all about, which was that students really care about this. They really do have opinions. That what students want is actually perhaps a lot less about content than maybe those of us on the content creation side feared. But that organization really cannot be overstated. And clarity really cannot be overstated, regardless of what kind of program or what kind of student you are talking about. So that takes me to the end of my prepared remarks. Please go ahead and I see some things in the chat so far. But yeah, if anyone wants to pop a hand up and share your own thoughts of anything like this has happened at your institution or ask any particular questions. Yeah, please go ahead and do that. And I will start while I wait for people to gather their thoughts. I'll start with the questions in the chat. Sarah, we'd love to hear more about the camera issues. Okay, so this, I'm sure we all know that whether or not to have cameras on is like one of the big topics at the minute. And so I included it in asking the students. I mean, if you've got 540 students willing to answer questions, like why not ask? And this was a really interesting one because of all the questions we asked, this was one of the ones that was the most standard across faculties but really delineated by type of degree. So a bunch of the other questions were kind of like, well the people who do graphs and maths cared about this whereas the people who were in arts and humanities did not. So they were more divided by the type of learning you were doing. This was really the only one that was divided by type of degree. And quite simply what it was is undergraduate students like cameras, non-undergraduate students don't. That's a massive oversimplification. It depends on the type of session. It depends on the size of the group. It depends on many, many, many things. But the statistically interesting result was that it really actually was a BA versus not BA thing. It was not gender. It was not language. It was not area of study. But it was a really interesting thing about age, essentially. That's the proxy we're using. And what we found digging into this and the qualitative feedback was that it was about feeling engaged, feeling part of community. Now my personal extrapolation is perhaps this is because postgraduate students are coming into their studies with established networks of friends and colleagues whereas undergraduates are not because that's often where we develop those networks and friendship groups beyond where we've come from ourselves. So maybe that's why. But what was interesting is that, yeah, pretty much undergraduates were like, yes, please either make or strongly encourage people to have their cameras on. No one wanted to be first. Everyone wanted some authority figure to encourage it. Whereas the vast majority of the postgraduates, with a few exceptions when it came to practical things like sessions, for example, for nursing students about how to engage with patients, students studying language where it's seeing your mouth was important. But aside from sort of very pragmatic reasons, the postgraduate response was, yeah, nah, I'd like to have the choice. I don't really want it to be made a big fuss of. So that was really interesting. All right, so going back into the chat. Vanessa number two. To what extent would you consider a consistent method of modular accessibility? Right, okay, great. So that's a great question. So one of the things that we're definitely doing is making sure that all of the things that we recommend in terms of module organization on the platform are fully compliant with accessibility needs before we recommend them. So that's a really key point. And the thing that we're talking about is that it's actually not necessarily about the visual element in terms of color or font. So first of all, we are recommending that everyone use dyslexia friendly fonts just as a given in terms of color and color contrast. We have the sort of King's branding templates that we kind of have to use. But when students talk about consistent module organization, it's less about the visual and more about I know that all of the information about assessments are going to be in one place with the label heading of assessment. So I don't have to dig around because maybe it's some of it's in week three, some of it's in week seven, some of it's at the end because it's organized in a linear, in a chronological fashion, rather than by type. Now, you can have that heading of assessment in whatever color you need. You can do all sorts of things with it. So it's not so much about what it looks like as just knowing where to find things, which is really the key. And a lot of what we've been doing since getting the student feedback in November December is actually testing this out. And, okay, what if we use this sort of template? What would work and what wouldn't work? And we're working, I mean, that's why it's an interdisciplinary group. We're working with disability services. We're working with all the parts of Kings to essentially test out all of these things so that the various examples we can use to show staff what this looks like, at least as much as possible, can take into account these different kinds of needs. So I hope that that answers that question, Vanessa, but it's definitely something we're really, really, really cognizant of and I don't know if there's a perfect solution. Carina, finding relevant information. Yep, that's pretty much what we're doing. Cultural difference, Alan. So no, actually that was one of the things we were looking for. That's one of the things we perhaps expected to find. And instead what we found was it was really not actually that much about cultural difference. We did find that a lot of the things that we had thought about primarily from an accessibility point of view, so sending slides ahead of time, for example, is commonly requested by disability services. Those things actually were also requested by students who don't speak English as their first language, international students. So we actually found that a lot of things that we thought were accessibility improvements actually applied to a much wider range of students than we necessarily had expected initially. But we did not see a particular difference in camera preferences across nationality, which was interesting because that could have been, yeah, I agree, that could have been a thing that we saw. So I hope that answered your question, Alan. To what extent staff needs might be considered, it might be a hard to tell major's part, it's the same style of color structure. Yeah, so staff needs are definitely considered, right? As I mentioned at the beginning, this was a parallel set of feedback. So we went and asked students and we went and asked academic staff and we went and asked professional services staff. So we have three sets of feedback that then we've been working since then to make them all go together. Interestingly, we have not actually gotten that concern from staff. That's not actually something that staff has raised, have raised as being a potential issue. So, yeah, I haven't heard that one, which is interesting. Gavin, sounds familiar, accessibility includes predictability for layout, finding slides for week one to be in the same place. Yes, exactly. Gavin, that's exactly what we're talking about here. It doesn't, the slides don't need to look the same. The content doesn't need to be the same. It's about where can I find the thing? When will I present feedback from the other groups? That is a good question. I run the feedback for the other groups. So I know that they're going to be presented within Kings at the conference I mentioned in June. I don't know if there are plans necessarily to present them like a full session on it like now. I kind of signed up for this because I thought it would be really interesting to share with the alt community. But if there's interest, I can definitely report back to the group and maybe the person who ran the staff feedback session would want to come do a session like this. Are we going to publish our findings? So the protocol itself, the actual document will as with most things eventually become a standard university policy that you can search around and find any university's policy on anything. So that will be a thing relatively soon. We are presenting rather a lot of this again at the June conference, which will be recorded and then available. Are there any plans to publish this as like an academic article? Probably not because that takes time. And I just finished my PhD and don't really want to write academic articles right now. Yeah, sorry for the sort of funness, but I just wrote 100,000 word books. So don't really want to write a 10,000 word academic article right the second. But eventually maybe. I guess this session was in some degree kind of a test to see if people were interested. Gavin, present this at UK Online Moodle Moot in two weeks. I was not aware of that, but that sounds interesting. Gavin, if that would be cool, would you mind sending me an email or something about it? Because I would definitely be willing to. So please, if you could follow up with that. Email you, okay? I will attempt to find your email. Ah, yes, perfect. Thank you. I will follow up with you after the session. Cool. I don't see any hands up, but that also could be because I'm absolutely failing. Aha, lower hand. Alan, you've got a hand up. Yeah, I thought I'd put my hand up just to help you out. Because one thing I can't stand in teaching is when nobody else, the person who's exposing themselves to the world. And I was just wondering, because I'm not familiar with the university, whether the problems arose in the discussions with the students about the use of multiple platforms that each academic prefers. So we have Zoom, we have Teams, we have Collaborate, which is what this is at the moment, I think. We have others. We also have a whole multitude of people experimenting with different aspects of delivery, you know, in assessments, stuff like that. Whether there was any messages coming through, saying this is actually a little bit overwhelming to be experimented on these circumstances. Yeah, so we actually, that did happen at the beginning of last, this past academic year, but since about November, Kings has actually been quite clear that everyone has to use Teams. So we don't, in fact, there was a bit of all over the place, but pretty much everything is on Teams now. So in terms of live sessions at least, that has been reduced. Something that did come up a massive amount was about things across different platforms, but actually not because of the pandemic. This has been a student complaint for much longer, which was that to get access to your timetable and to your module information and to your student records, those are all three systems that don't talk to each other. And like it's very hard to get, to know, to move to one to the other and know where to find that information. And that has nothing to do with the pandemic. That has been an issue for long before that. And that's what students brought up, whereas the main thing that was brought up as new from the pandemic was the challenges of knowing where to find meeting links, whether those would be emailed or put on Keats or given out on Teams the app itself. There was a bit of confusion about that. But again, since January, the university has kind of standardized that one. So I think my guess is that a lot of people were kind of cognizant that this was a potential issue. And so actually we've been moving quite quickly to reduce that particular confusion. So it was something that students brought up but not quite in that way. Yeah, head of student registry. Yeah, I imagine that you are probably the one that gets all of these complaints all the time. So yeah, this is probably exactly what you expect. So thank you, Alan, for that question. And now I know how raised hands works. Anyone else wants another one? Is there some way that you can see the questions you use in the survey? So the problem is that I can send you the first survey asking people to sign up to participate in this. But A, it's not really that interesting. But I can share that. The problem is I can't send you the second survey because it includes in the survey what the draft baseline policy is. And we're trying very hard to ensure that we keep continuity about which version of the policy gets released into the world. So that's partially why in the Google Doc that you are all shared on on page five, I have some examples of the kind of language that we used. But unfortunately, I'm not allowed to send you the whole survey because it actually has the content in it that's not ready to be public. I am working, however, that we're hoping that some of this kind of more behind the scenes, how did we get here stuff will be able to be shared in future. But at the moment, sadly, I cannot. It is also 48 questions long. So like it's big. But if you want some examples of like how we phrased things, it's on pages four and five. Yeah, I know. That's why I put some stuff on the Google Doc. I'm also I have I'm happy to kind of work with you on questions separately from this. If you've got ideas or want some thoughts. But yeah, we are still kind of in the finalizing mode. So we're keeping an eye on quality, not quality control. You know what I mean? Keeping everything sort of standardized. But essentially, the surveys were quite simple. We had sections for each of the parts of the baseline. So I think there's five sections. Each of them have subsections, and we kind of had one question on each. So we're, for example, maybe asking something about how useful are captions to your learning experience? How, you know, rate on a scale? How what the quality is in your experience in your faculty at the moment of captions? What's most important to you on a module page in terms of organization? How do you currently think that's being done? Those are the sorts of things we're asking. We've chosen to very touch the platform. You don't want to shift to classrooms, to teams. How did King staff adapt? Yeah. Okay. So this was a massive combined effort. There's not like one silver bullet, but I think some of the key pieces were that it was getting very confusing for students. And so there was sort of pressure from the bottom. Additionally, our professional services staff, King's Academy, the Center for Technology Enhanced Learning, CTEL, and a number of other parts of our really great professional services staff rolled out masses of training. So if you didn't know how to use teams, you could sign up for a 10 minute basic how to start with teams. There were guides. There was every sort of training, asynchronous, synchronous, written video, whatever that you could need to use teams. And it was rolled out sort of en masse with a lot of publicity around it within the organization. So that was I think quite a big thing. And then in addition, there was sort of top down guidance about, look, this is important, here are the benefits. And moving a lot of kind of our ad hoc things, so committees, staff meetings, et cetera, also onto teams. So that once you made that shift, we could just kind of all live in that ecosystem rather than having to switch back and forth. But it definitely was a process. And obviously it's always difficult for people to change. So I think the fact that it was a multifaceted effort was really key. Did students comment on the value of module forums? Yes, okay. This was definitely something that it talked about. So one thing that a lot of teaching staff are doing is using asynchronous modes of communication. So for example, not having, still having a seminar, but having lectures that are prerecorded and then having, for example, forum engagement from students. I know in classes I teach, this is what we do. And essentially the way that Keats is currently set up is that every time someone posts into a forum, so for example, if a student responds to another student, you get a notification. You can turn it off, but you can't get notification for anything else being updated in that module. So if your professor uploads a document explaining how the exam's going to work, you don't get a notification that that document has been uploaded. Whereas if student A responds to student B about a reading and student X then gets a notification about that response. So students were essentially saying, we're getting notifications about not as important stuff and we're not getting notified about the things that we really, really want to know. So that was a sort of functional element that students were responding to in that comment. In terms of wider feedback we've getting from students on the value of module forums, it tends to be very much how the teacher is using them. So the feedback we're getting is that if students understand the point of these forums, like what do we need to put in them? How long is it going to take? When do I need to do it? How is this information then going to be picked up and brought into the course further on? Engagement is actually quite high. If however students are given instructions like you have to post in the forum about the reading, students are like why? How much? How often? Do I have to read it? Et cetera. So it does seem to be kind of less as with many things with teaching it's less about I hate this technology, I love this technology it's a lot more about how it's used pedagogically. If you're interested in pedagogical teaching tips and especially in terms of online and how do you balance how do you balance synchronous and asynchronous? This is actually where the majority of my research is so I have some guidance on that and I'm going to go ahead and pop those in the chat if people are interested. These are essentially teaching tips. How do you do these things usefully in an online situation? So I'm just going to quick pop those. So the first one that I've put in the Google Doc is the really big document, all the stuff and then the second link is a short little blog that just kind of explains the main points if you would rather look at that. Alan, I think I see that your handle is up again. Yes, sorry. I'm really interested in the transcribing and captioning because we've taken about 10 years to implement a digital recording policy at least which caused no end of problems and obviously now we're the commitment equal opportunities commitment to captioning and transcribing creates a massive workload problem. I've never heard or seen of students becoming involved in that. Really interested how long you've been doing that and how did you get them engaged? So this is currently ongoing effort so we don't have an established completed program that I can tell you everything about but what we're essentially working on is within faculties using the we have we use Kaltura so using the built-in functionality of the machine to provide initial captions and transcripts but obviously then need to be massively cleaned up particularly if you don't speak English as your first language or you have a non-Posh English accent or you're using super technical words because it's science and everything has seven syllables the automatic captioning doesn't work that well and as we know that's creating a huge amount of extra work for lecturers or professional services staff and so the idea is that we're hoping to engage students to help with that process of essentially cleaning up captions and transcripts. The idea that we're currently looking at is going at it by faculty so for example in the school then you might be working on captions within something in the business school right and this is to leverage both existing knowledge so people might already be familiar with the seven syllable words and also because it actually provides a learning opportunity and what we're finding is that particularly second, third year and master students are actually quite interested in doing this for modules that either they can't take because it's essentially a way of auditing modules and master students in particular are very interested in doing this for undergraduate modules especially if they've come in from a different program or a different type of program because it's a way of again kind of auditing a course and getting paid a bit of money to do it so it's a great kind of win-win so what we're trying to set up is sort of faculty specific efforts where students assist in this process and both get a bit of you know it's a good part-time job it exposes them to the workflow and the technical aspects of this kind of technology and it can be you know sort of a learning experience as well so we're in the process of exploring whether this might solve that problem but this is a really big problem so I definitely can't say that we have like magically figured it out it's simply something that is perhaps going to help so maybe in a year someone can go back and report on how that's going okay I think I'm caught up on chat comments I believe I'm caught up on hands up so if anyone else has anything they want to either share or ask please let me know and yeah I hope this is interesting oh and if anyone wants to follow up I can be found either of those places great yeah I mean I know with captioning and transcripts there are loads and loads of different things happening at different universities so my group is definitely my committee the digital accessibility group is really looking at what other people are doing as well because I think we're all kind of grappling with this challenge so we're definitely not trying to say that we're doing something better than anyone else and I think this is a big learning curve for everyone Fiona I am not on Twitter I apologize I'm on LinkedIn if that helps but Twitter not there yet okay any yeah great thank you can you please share your tip stock again and you missed that bit sure I can do that seeing if I can find the conference in June so this is the conference where we're going to be presenting a lot of this in June so I'm sure there will be many tweets and things there for you to follow along like the idea of sharing Google Doc rather than true thank you Susan I'm actually going to be writing about it for just probably pretty soon I kind of came up with a by accident and it's made a massive difference this year I know for example from my students that I teach that they actually really like it and I've not really ever not really ever have I had anyone complain and I know that when I attend webinars I'm often always annoyed that like I can't take notes directly on the screen so I'm glad you like it I do too well if anyone's got anything else we've got a few minutes left otherwise I'm happy to turn it back over to the powers that be well thank you oh we have another question Fiona has a question I just wondered because it isn't anything else you just asked about anything else whether you're doing anything for global accessibility awareness day at King's and which is on the 20th of May I know that there are a bunch of things happening for it I am not leading on any of those so I don't want to mis-speak because I know there are things happening I just don't happen to have all the details out my fingertips apologies is the King's Learning and Teaching Conference internal I believe it is Vanessa but I know there's going to be a lot of things shared on social media and some of the things will be recorded and then shared afterwards so that might be a way to see some of it I would also honestly encourage you just to reach out to the people organising it because that might be possible again I'm not in charge of such grand things but you can always ask that's right doesn't hurt to ask yeah oh I mean I'm presenting I'm presenting in an alt webinar and like I don't even what am I doing here I don't have a job as a learning you know I'm not I'm not one of these fancy people so they just sent out a google doc and I filled it in and now I'm here and you seem to be enjoying it so well we're very glad that you came and I think that was really really great and really refreshing as well doing it the way that you've done it so yeah thank you for that an excellent participation in the chat really great to see all of that and yeah you've shared some brilliant resources as well and I can see lots of lots of love for it in the chat which is great so yeah just if we've got a couple of more minutes if anybody does have any if you just want to chat about things or whatever I'll hang around for half past I'd just like to thank you very much Miranda for coming along and thank you everybody for your your excellent comments and contribution and you know come along and see what the next one will be on exactly yeah so Chris has just popped something in the chat I don't space any students raised audio description or something for further investigation you mean audio description as in like for a lecture what what where do you mean audio description showing up yeah I was meaning really just in terms of any video content or I suppose live content that has visual elements in it and we've we've got some some lectures and things with quite complex information conveyed in the video and yeah I just wondered in how if you had to deal with this problem specifically and how to almost educate the academics and the presenters in in preparing for for this really complex stuff yeah so that's actually been a huge thing not so much in terms of audio description as alt text that's generally how it's come up but the idea of how do you describe purely visual information such that students with visual impairments can actually access it has been a huge topic of debate particularly with the academics audio description as an alternative interestingly has not actually been really suggested so if you don't mind I'm going to take that back to my group and see if our current key set of could handle that because that might be a really good way around it but yeah so alt text educating educators about what is needed for alt text trying to figure out ways of making that actually viable went for the more complicated graphical elements is really something that we are quite actively working on and trying to find ways that work for the students but don't add really you know hours and hours hours of extra work for the academic so audio description is a really good idea we haven't really explored that but that's definitely something that we're quite actively working on and definitely paying attention to what other unis are doing as well yeah you work for T-Tella Kings yes exactly okay Dave I knew I recognized your name from somewhere I was probably in one of those workshops yeah there were a lot of really good workshops it really definitely made a difference pretty much all of my colleagues we've all been to like a bunch of them even the people who like generally don't like technology so having all of those workshops and knowing that every time you realize you needed to learn a new skill there was going to be a workshop available to sign up for that you didn't have to wait two months for the next one or there wasn't one posted knowing that there was support there was really key in just getting people to sign up for them and learn from them so yeah C-Tell thank you awesome does anybody else have any last last few comments or questions for Miranda and otherwise that's so I think we're done well that's great absolutely to time spot on I am a teacher so you told me to be done and I finished you did say you did say well what time do I actually need to finish by right okay and fair play you're on the money yes I'm a teacher this is what I'm trained at oh that's brilliant thank you very much and thank you everybody and yeah see you all again soon thank you very much and goodbye bye bye now thanks for Rande thanks ever so much thanks