 My name is Oili Soulye, first little warning in front of anodion senten to switch to French, so apologies if you want to talk to me about the English version later, just come and see me. I'm learning technologies for Cronfield University, I've prepared this presentation with Fran Harrison, our e-learning project manager, but I'm presenting about something we've done as a team which is basically a programme that we've designed, developed and successfully implemented a 10-week programme using Moodle entirely. This package is called Getting Published in Tennis Steps and was different from our standard Moodle courses. It's the first time we did something different, not just using our collapse topics and the standard Moodle page, but it was different in the sense that we used the whole of our team and colleagues to put that together, so I just wanted to share our experience. As well as covering the origin of the design of the programme and its implementation, I will also explore different ways we've put the programme together and how we integrated things like videos from our streaming media server and things from a blog that we've written in Mahara, so we've overcome different challenges and finally I'll expose some feedback of the programme and further steps for our development. The Get Published programme was initially implemented by our CDS, the Cronfield Defence and Security School, which is one of the four schools of Cronfield University. We're based at Shrevenham, the Defence Academy. There might be people here from either the Defence Academy or military background here at the back on Her Majesty's Secret Service and a colleague from another part of the Moodle is here as well. We've got different Vialys, but we'll use Moodle so we share things together as well and we learn from each other and that's one of the good things we've learned from other people here. Now all students come from military backgrounds, so we've got students straight from universities and first degrees, but we are a postgraduate only university, so we teach at postgraduate level and we have key activity is research. So we have a lot of researchers and one of our targets like many universities is to increase the publication and the quality of publication for things like REF. So about 18 months ago, we had a meeting with one lecturer, Tracy Temple and Dr Richard Twyman, an expert in preparation, editing and revision of scientific manuscripts who has a golden eye for publication. Our director of research prof, Richard, supported and sponsored the project as well. So we met and they wanted something like a webinar series, but they didn't know what a webinar was. So we talked to them about what we could do with Moodle. We came up with this, get published in the Tennessee Steps package and designed it as a team and recorded, piloted what happened with that. So the aim was to reach our research staff and research students who couldn't attend Richard's face-to-face workshops for full days and guide them through each type of the writing process of papers. So now, for your eyes only, to assist researchers, we had this 10-week programme. So what we have is an introduction summary and survey at the back. There's 10 steps consistently designed in a grid format. It's the first time we're really using grid formats for anything else than testing. And what we've done is we've tried to pull it all together with very consistent format, which I'll go through in a minute. The development of the programme was with a senior project manager, Fran, who wrote this presentation with me. And for the first time, as I said earlier, all the parts of our team pulled together to actually create this higher level of standard interaction. As Louis said earlier, for us, the interaction was a great thing to build a community of researchers as well as delivering that programme. So there was a mid-development focus group as well that we held with some MSc students from the course that Tracy was teaching. And it quickly became evident that the taught students, taught course students had very different expectations from our programme. So, literally, we were at that stage trying to pull square pegs into round holes because they had very different expectations. But throughout the programmes, this difference carried on as well. So this highlighted for us the importance of defining your course audience very well. And that will actually change that for future implementations as well. But the big take-out for us was how we could actually efficiently develop that social learning community development to actually pull together through the programme and keep them motivated in learning. So one of the requirements that we had was to control the access. So we were asked for something like a MOOC, but not a MOOC, typical. So they didn't really want everybody to get into it. They just wanted the researchers, but they wanted it for the researchers to be easy to access. So what we did in the end is we just controlled the access with an enrollment key that they were given on an invite. So all the researchers were sent an invite, paper invite, and they were able to join with that key. In the end, we had 134 staff and research students self-enrolled on the course. And it doesn't sound much for most people, but we only have 220 academics in our institution. So it was quite a success for us. And we added something that we call a privilege access, which is basically an element that after a cut-off point, which was halfway through the course, we stopped the enrollment key. So just to keep that sense of community, we stopped people joining after a while so that they could go through and learn. So this is why it's not quite open. So what we've used, as I said earlier, is the grid format. It was initially designed on a clean theme for Moodle 2.9, but a transition to 3.1 was actually quite seamless. So we were quite happy with that because we moved to an essential theme. The grid format for us improved the visual impact of the course. We used our graphic designer team. And again, when I said team, I'm almost talking about one and two people. We are about 12 of us in the different teams who pull together to create this with two learning technologies, two graphic designers, two programmers, and some people doing multiple roles as well. But the graphic designers ensure the consistency, the thumbnail styles which work well for mobile as well. And each step had a date-realist system as well. So we used a restrict access function in Moodle to move forward. So each of the steps were created on the template. So they all work exactly the same. So students have got clear expectations of what to find in every step. First of all, we had a video that was filmed and published in-house with our graphic team, led by Claire, our director. The music was written in-house by our multimedia programmer who happens to be an experienced electronic music composer. So we just pulled on everything we could get. The audio files were accessible here for different learning preferences as well and accessibility. The transcripts were there as well every time. And some staff actually commented on feedback that they used the audio transcript and the audio file and the transcript together so they could annotate as they were listening. They preferred that to the videos. So it depended on who was accessing. And there was a summary as well. So these were not the transcript key points of takeaways of what they could get from that, which were matched with the summary in the video. The forum was moderated by the subject matter experts, so Tracy Temple and Dr Richard Twyman. And also we had a persona called GetPublished who would keep reminding people to take part. Just when a new section, a new step was opened, they would actually post something, et cetera. So that kept going from the course that wasn't a real person, but it just kept people on task. And there was a learning journal that people could use to actually reflect and a blog. The blog is not a real blog because we don't have a blog system at Cronthal University, so we used Mahara. And we had a pre-worked example that was published every week and released every week. And that's the integration. So that's the Mahara pre-worked example. We've gone on the slide. And I said that we will continue to, for example, to expect that something might have written and what it changed reflecting on what they've learned in that video for that week. Also we don't have a content management system. And so because we had quite a number of videos, what we used is a streaming server. I don't know if anybody uses ensemble, but it's not really true. We didn't really enjoy using it, but we just had to. That's the system we had, and we had some difficulties with it, but in the end we overcame it. So what we did, I think it's late on my presentation, but I can say now, is what happened with the ensemble, we can't choose your frame when you display it in a label in Moodle. So what we did instead of doing that, we used a picture of the front, let's say the title, and we just put an icon of the play button on it so it looks like people are going to play it like on YouTube. And then that clicks to a URL that opens ensemble, basically. So just work arounds that we had to go through. So what we had as well, participants were awarded a badge on completion of the exit questionnaire. So we wanted to get feedback on this, obviously, because it was a pilot. So we had a number of questions, and if they answered the questionnaire, they would get a badge. And that badge was their invite for the 11th step promotion party where we would get more feedback, basically. So they were invited to have cakes and coffee in the library after they completed this, just as an incentive to completing. And that worked quite well. And we had more feedback at the 11th step celebration as well, gathered by the project manager and the learning service team. So that was very useful. So how we got about it is sort of a successful feature that worked was that we met, the Get Published team met regularly as a team with the subject matter experts. So that goes back to involving the teachers, the content on the instructors are the key point here. They are the people doing the content. We are just enabling them to do that with the technology. So we have meetings. We use that Get Published persona that was really successful. And the community development was almost, basically we tried. It was almost a surprise that it worked for us, and it was really good to see people in forums, experienced researchers talking to less experienced people and giving advice and sharing good practice. I'm just linking up as well. The badges were a success as well. The enrollment system worked well, and the grid actually was very suited to this program. The difficulties, as I said earlier, trying to manage expectations of the academics in that case, of trying to manage content, but we got over the enrollment issues with just having a key for enrollments. The development community building questions. So we involved stakeholders. We were reviewing progress, and we developed it in a agile way as well. So we did the first few weeks in advance, but then we actually redesigned the videos of the week 5, 6, 7, as the first few weeks were running. So we were quite agile in the development of the program. So we were ready at any time to put in little chats and things like that, which we didn't need because things were done on the forum, but we were ready to actually do interventions if needed by Richard Twyman. The videos, as I mentioned, didn't play well, so we used a picture with a play button on it. The other thing is the Moodle URL was friendly, so we had, I think, Jason's in the room somewhere, making us a custom URL for quick access, so that could go on the invites, etc. The feedback. So on the 11-week feedback, we had 100% of the people who answered said they would revisit the program when writing their next papers, so that's something, obviously, that's exactly what we expect them to do, so that's good, and that's the thing, it's not saying a static resources that people can tap onto if they were part of that program. The exit questionnaire gave us in-depth feedback that I've mentioned just now as well, and we gathered more feedback. One of the key things we've been asked for is a social science thread, which was incorporated in the second version. So that's one of our researchers' views, basically very positive feedback about the discussion forums and also the design and the fact that, even though there wasn't any social science, they could actually apply things to their papers. Future steps. So, briefly mentioned, there's a version two, so never say never again. The take from the university-wide stuff in the second-run package was about as high, if not higher, about 200 people, so we've now moved to, instead of just our school, the whole university running this package. Still running, it started in December 2016, so it's not running, but it's just finished, and the impact studies on both cohorts is currently done. Professor Mark Richardson, the director of research, our sponsor, who's pretty much the man with the golden gun, wants us to meet to discuss the next steps with the package, so we're looking forward to actually develop this and update video and content. So, just any further information, contact us. I've got Twitter accounts as well. If you want to talk to me, come and talk to me at lunch or dinner, and this is us, that's our Twitter accounts. Any questions? Excellent presentation. I just want to say, I think it's a bit cruel. We have a talk about good practice for course design. Then you have to stand up and talk about how you built your course. But actually, I think you passed the test, because I think you did most of the things that Lewis said you should be doing, like high production values and...