 Is this one of the most challenging parts of the conference where we challenged the leaders of each of our sessions to present two days worth of discussions in two minutes to present a summary of the findings of each of their workshops. This is the fourth year that I've been picked to volunteer to host this session. It never quite goes the way I expect but we always get there on the end Ond rwyf i'r pryd oeddwn ni wedi gweld byddai'n gen i ddweud dwyr i'r pryd a ddweud hyn yn ei haf iawn yn iawn yn cael ei gafodd cael sefydlu'n ddweud a yna'r tyfu'r cyddiad yn ni'n rhwng Mae'n gofio. Rwy'n dim yn yw'n gwneud ymgrifetig. Yr unrhyw yng Nghyrch yn gwahanol Adym, rydw i'n deithasio dros y cyddiadeth? Rwy'n gallu'n dechrau ddiadeth ffiannwch Felly, mae'n gweithio o'i hanfodol yma i fod y Trustun Charity for how to get a solution. We use this template, which is a business model canvas adapted, to try to help us look at the different aspects that might need to come together to make a sensible kind of strategy. It's thinking that we're going to have to pitch things kind of as a business model in some sense internally. And we all found it was very problematic but it's full of people in here and we found the mess was totally more workable. So what we're going to do about this, the big problem really was that there's so many interrelationships that seem to emerge in terms of the different stakeholders, the different value propositions to them, very hard to tease these apart. So we seem to come with kind of two conclusions. One was if it was going to be a strategic response it would be very focused on a particular area like some type of tension or league tables and then everything else would happen around that very narrow in a sense. Or maybe that we shouldn't have a quotes learning analytics strategy at all. And then we should think about putting in place some of the changes to information management, to governance, privacy, all those kind of things that would help a more emergent and organic process by which people could use some idea of learning analytics and have the framework in which they could take action without a lot of problems and questions being asked. This was a session organised in collaboration with the LACE project. I have put all of the information about using the business model canvas and the photographs of our group work available via our URL. I welcome you to take a look and it is the learning analytics community exchange. Please get in touch with us and make comments if you have anything to say. We will be very interested to carry on the discussion about a learning analytics strategy for a higher education institution. Last one minute, 35 seconds. Well done Adam, well done. Next up, we have Phil. We will be talking about learning resource metadata. What do we have here? A group of us metadata fans got together with David Curnahan to discuss this question. Just to give you a little bit of background as to the metadata that we have been involved with in the past, there is a certain hardcore element to it, not just doubling core, but hardcore element which gave rise to the movement which was created in counter distinction to the eduponk movement you might remember a few years ago called eduprog to describe some of our beautifully crafted but rather barock creations of educational metadata. LRMI is different to that. LRMI is not just of the web, LRMI is in the web. It's in the web, it's in the pointy brackets of web pages and that makes it different. For one thing, it means that it's somewhat more free form. If you've got thousands of people creating metadata in the same way that they create web pages, you might get something that's called a little bit of a mess, but I prefer to call it free form, like free jazz there. But also, most importantly, it is targeted towards what teachers actually want to do when they're trying to find resources and how they find those resources, we think. The end of the session, I think even David agreed that this seemed a little bit more sensible than previous approaches. Well done, do you think I can do better than this one? Okay, so next up we have open education, a new world order, who is going to be presented with this? I know it was me wrong in the session, Hugh, or Hugh? So we had two very interesting talks in the first part of our morning afternoon, sorry. We had Audrey Watt's talk to us and presented a picture of MOOCs as a teaching machine, the boys toys, is that fair? Rather like the Google self-driving car, it's an interesting thing to do and you do it because it's an interesting thing to do. As opposed to Amy Woodgate from Edinburgh, who gave a different view of MOOCs as a fantastic fun experiment that we were doing. That's a kind of interesting way of looking at these things, but the experiment is interesting and Amy, as you know about Edinburgh, Edinburgh have done now, they're aiming for 30 MOOCs and that's a lot of MOOCs and they're kind of now pulling back a bit and saying why have we done all this, what have we learned from it, would we go on doing more, are we going to move on and we are going to use this to integrate into our mainstream teaching, how are we going to use this, so the experimental stage is kind of coming to an end she says and I think Southampton, we agree that we're a bit behind them, we're a year behind them, but I think in a year's time we'll be doing the same thing, standing back and saying why did we do all that, then we did a bit of this business model canvas stuff and then we all broke the rules and didn't put the right things in the right places, but we did come up with something, we played the game from the point of view of a research-led university, a teaching-focused university and a new market entrant, probably Pearson, and the research-focused one, I don't think we really had loads of money but there was enough money in the system to do it, whereas the teaching-focused people had to be much more... Go, go, go. All right, this session was a very small selection, Brian and myself, with three other noble participants. Brian explained a lot about Wikipedia and I focused on questions of the culture and governance. Now you might be familiar with Wikipedia's five pillars and I was concerned with the fourth pillar in particular about being nice to each other generally. It's not cool that this is being nice to each other. Because we had such a small select group, we were able to have a wide and free-ranging discussion covering the interests of the participants and one member will quote, it fired my enthusiasm for the whole thing, which we were all very grateful for. Now let's spend a little bit more time on the conclusions if there were any conclusions. I was very interested actually by what we did come up with because I'm not a Wikipedia expert at all myself, Brian, so I'm a Wikipedia expert. Wikipedia has little cultural coherence. There's a danger of shock when people actually suddenly realise that it's not all sweetness and light there. That needs looking at, needs a bit of remedy. We need some gentle enculturation if that word sits nicely with you. Dissociate from the negative cultures and the technology and the language which harks back to nasty things and flame wars and stuff. Bring in new cultures, groups of people together. Make the editing process more transparent and then bring the e-learning community. This is where it really comes down to our interests. Bring the e-learning community into Wikipedia. Update and maintain the key articles. This is Brian's hobby course. Learn from the process of doing that and address the inevitable tensions. Build our culture of doing things, playing nice and it's a job to do and there's a lot more to do than I anticipated there was, so it's really worth looking at this whole area. Thanks. Okay, who's next? Scott, sorry. I lost your black back, I'm sorry. You're going to have to wait. That's very depressing because we're the IT service management crowd and we have to be different as a project with the e-learning stuff. So, Phil gave us this challenge or our allies challenged yesterday about applicant to alumni or prospect to alumni and how we can respond to that. So, we looked at that problem first from the perspective of our IT services groups and how we manage our portfolio of technologies and then a bit of roleplay from the perspective of all the other groups in the university where we all have to do this very embarrassing exercise that was actually a lot of fun. From the first point of view, from IT service management, we've got real problems in terms of managing the IT estate. We've got real difficulties in how we procure solutions that cross these boundaries between services and software and across open and closed solutions. It is still an issue and it's a distributed problem across the organisation and when we have stuff, we don't really have good prices for managing them or moving them on and we know that a lot of decisions are made in a way that doesn't really work properly for our advantage. From the perspective of other staff in the organisation, it's basically whatever. They just care that stuff works. So, the whole problem isn't their problem. So, we need some good tools to be able to address that because we're not going to get a great deal of support from colleagues as long as things work they're happy. One of the tools we did find really useful maybe for some work on this model of identifying strategic and mission critical technologies and strategic upshift and downshift because this seems to be something that's particularly broken in organisations in that we tend to buy systems or procure them depending on which people or on which committees rather than which ones are actually strategic or which ones are actually mission critical and that says we've got a governance issue that we need to fix. Thank you very much. Well done. Next, oh sorry, I beg your private, I thought it was all from education, yeah, it's ebooks next actually. Who's doing ebooks? Sorry, Mariki. So, next up we have Wilbert telling us about ebooks. Indeed, that was the question that we asked ourselves. But before, you know, ebooks in principle you can stick almost anything into that. So, why not make it into a complete VLE? But before you answer that question, you kind of have to think, okay, what exactly is the difference between an ebook generally, you know, as you've downloaded on your channel versus an e-text book. So, we kind of brainstormed about what those requirements were and then compared it to the kinds of solutions that were out there. Now, I'm not going to go through all of them, but the immediate one that always pops up for e-text books is testing. Just having a formative test at the end of the chapter for the student to make sure that they've actually understood what they were supposed to be learning. And that immediately opens the question, is that going to be online or is that going to be offline? And some solutions go for online, others encompass both online and offline. But it still is a bit of a question of, well, hang on, where does the web end and where does the ebook start? It's an unresolved one to some extent. The same kind of distinction pops up in the creation side, because slightly more unexpectedly, because the effort required to create an ebook is that much less. You can actually start to make some really interesting things with remixing and reuse and cloning and so on. And in that sense, ebooks actually start to, I think, show a real advantage over the web itself, because they're editable. And that allows you to tailor a textbook to the requirements of a particular course and a particular module. And I think that there's quite a bit of mileage in there. But there's lots more. Well, that impact very much, everything contains that from the nails. I'm slightly disturbed at the mention of cloning. I didn't realise it was cloning going on in these sessions. Next up, we have open education from perhaps policy and money. So I was in the session open education from open practice to open policy. And here we have a picture of the lovely Suzanne presenting and a quote from the OER programme, many people, many practices, one community. So the premise of the session was that there was imaginary country and in this country we had to decide whether we were going to have an open policy or not. And we had six different political ministers who would argue the case for or against for doing that. So we had David Cernhan, Paul Richardson, Joe Wilson, Suzanne Hardy, Paul Booth and Torrey Hull who will argue the case. So basically it was a discussion on open policy in different institutions and whether it's working, how it's working, what exactly policy it is. So here are some of our musings, which are just some of the things that we came up with in the session. So the idea of people sustaining open education not policy. So it's much driven by individuals, driven by people and actions that are going on by people out there. That practice is more powerful than policy but policy legitimises that practice. That was actually a quote from Simon Thompson and just the idea of making a bit of a driver there coming from both different directions from the bottom and the top as well. The policy itself can be burdensome sometimes. There can be issues around that and it doesn't necessarily, it isn't always conducive to practice itself. We also had some good discussions around ownership who owns content in universities, licensing, even got onto areas like formats and the whole concept of OER and breaking OERs down. Then we talked a little bit about the gap between policy and practice, what people are actually doing, how long policy takes to come through in Russell Group universities. Just the whole getting things put in place can be a nightmare. But I think one of the sort of decisions that we made at the end is really about building capacity, making sure that people understand what they're doing. Some of the stuff we talked around was about how open education can filter into other areas like schools, so about how people can reuse resources. Thank you. Thank you very much, Marie-Kie. That was a real challenge, that one. We covered so much ground in that session. Finally, our last summary. Brian Kelly is going to be telling us about building an accessible digital institution. Okay, I facilitated this session and there are only five people here, so it's kind of interesting that a majority of people go into other sessions. So some reflections, there was a broad agreement about when we're building this digital institution, this digital environment, we need to ensure that that caters for the needs of people with disabilities. Now I'm sure that everybody knows about the way with our guideline and that's got a very high profile across the sector, but it is flawed. But if you look across the sector on accessibility policies, you have vague policies, we will aspire to do WCAG. We'll aspire to be good people and do WCAG. Although they were very specific, but don't reflect reality. All university web pages will conform with WCAG AA. They're actually blunt statements like this, which actually don't reflect reality. So if you think about the PDFs in institutional repositories, the images won't have all tags, the researchers did that, they want to do that. Or if you think about the lecture capture, who's going to do all the annotations and captioning for those type of things? So there are problems with the vague or the specific, which isn't actually implemented. So going back to what Phil Richard was saying yesterday about the need for pragmatic, that use of pragmatic standards. That's of course something that Cetus and Yukon have been arguing for donkey's years. We have codefests in order to prove the standards. It's not just a standard in isolation. Within an accessibility context, the BS8878 provides that achievable policy. So challenges? Do people care? Or do people care enough to make any decisions? Or is it just lip service? Is the WCAG policy statement sufficient? There are political contexts to this. The drastic 70% reductions in the disability support allowance. So next step, it was really great when Paul was saying, yes, we need Cetus needs to work to welcome this area. Welcome to Cetus, and we'll be going on in those areas. Thank you. No.