 Hei, hei. Yn rhoi rhoi cyfeilio i'r Ffwc Ffwc Ffwc Ffwc i'r Rhaid i'r Llywodraeth Cymru, mae rhaid i'n barod hynny a gofynnwyr sy'n bwysig i fynd i'r staff i fynd i'w gael cyfwilio, mae eisiau'r cyfeilio i'r bwysig i'r rhaid i'r Ffwc Ffwc Ffwc Ffwc i'r Rhaid i'r Gweithgareddau o'r Ffwc Ffwc Ffwc Ffwc Ffwc Ffwc. Byddwch yn celfiwyr, y sydd wedi cyfgol y cyfgolwyddiad yw'r cyllid nhw'n rhan o'r gweithio'r celfiwyr yn rhan o'r ysgolwyr. Mae'r cyfgolwyr yn gweithio'r cyfgolwyr, mae'n gyntafol y mae gennych. Mae'n cyfgolwyr ar y cyflodiad sydd yn rhan o'r Gweithio. Mae'n cydwyddo'r cyflodiad sydd yn cyfrannu a'r Gweithio. In 2013 we had a little disappointing drop in our NSS statistics around about assessment and feedback. By the time we got round to looking at this, it referred to say our assessment and feedback policy no longer quite matched up to the infrastructure environment that we put in place with all these changes happening. As a consequence of that, we set up an assessment and policy working group. This basically took people from across the university, the faculty, the BDAs. We worked really hard, we got a students association involved in that and we also have a student representative in terms of an intern project we had about creating and engaging high quality delivery as part of the QAA enhancement systems. So the remit was set up in October 2013 to look at all these policies. The one thing I've missed out there is the grey box at the end is our technology enhanced learning unit. Basically we look after Moodle, we look after the university strategy and policy so it's really important to get us in this group of what's additionally quite high level people to work in that. A new policy came out in November 2013 so it's a two month working period so it was a really aggressive sort of agile approach to rewriting policy. It got passed in 2014, 2015 and basically resulted in a brand new assessment and feedback policy which became effective in 2014. It comprises of four principles which we've got in there, 20 separate clauses, it's eight pages long, nearly two and a half thousand words. There's a shiny glossy staff guide to tell them how to do it. There are 13 further guides to do with assessment of feedback policy practices in our institution. Now as an aside I did a quick Google search looking at the six random UK institutions and actually we all seem to be in the ballpark area for assessment of feedback guides. We're looking for two and a half thousand words, that's about thirteen minutes worth of reading that every member of staff needs to understand to come back and cover these four assessment principles. These assessment principles, these are the goals they've been distilled down from the REAP project, from 12 principles to the four main ones that we want to concentrate on. And the question is what does this actually have to do with Moodle? Well everything. Microsoft have done a bit of research recently looking at attention spans. Eight seconds is now the attention span that we have to deal with people. Full reference, Goldfisher at nine. So with this notion that we've got this limited amount of attention span, we've got assessment of feedback policies that will take you a quarter of an hour to get through. That's one of fifteen. What can we do to fix that? This is my boss's term, he wants compliance and convenience. It should be easier for our staff to use the tools and meet the assessment feedback policy than it is to ignore it or to not do something or to deliberately go out of the way of working with it. So the rest of this is really about what we've done about how to deal with this. So how does this affect Moodle? These two principles that we've got here are the key ones. Practices have to be fair and transparent and they have to be clearly communicated. That's bread and butter of the VLE. It's about putting content in front of staff and students. Some of what I'm going to say is obvious. Change to defaults. I'm not going to go into too much detail. This has been done in previous Moodle conferences and there's really good presentations to go back and look at them. Knowing what the settings are and what they mean, not just from a technical perspective but also from the policies and procedures that you want to impose is a really important part of it. The setup of our working group allowed that conversation to happen in a really short sort of working practice. We didn't have to go and ask an academic about how they're doing at combat, wait for them to respond. We could do it all in the room and we basically get some sensible defaults for all the tools that we need. These are some of the obvious ones. We have a policy about academic dishonesty. There's a submission statement. That became mandatory to everybody. We took that choice away. Turn it in. Again, most of our staff don't actually care about how turn it in is configured. The policy generally tells them what it is. They want to turn it off or they want to opt out or they want to not have the student paper stored. That's it. All the rest of it doesn't matter to them. Blind marking again, policy. This is an interesting one because blind marking doesn't work everywhere so we have to deal with some interesting practices to make the policy work with the technology implemented. That only gets you so far. Defaults don't cover everything. Some things don't provide defaults around grading methods. For example, we have really good tools, really good at communicating the assessment feedback structures for a class. We can't default them to be turned on. The other thing I'll say is where the defaults are there, Moodle's got lots and lots of settings. If it's not a choice for the staff, if the policy says don't do it, turn it off. That's not enough. We wanted to go a little bit further along the four policies that we had. Principle three was about the assessment feedback practices are clearly stated. Defaults don't help us with that. We introduced in 2014 two additional features onto the standard Moodle assignment. We started asking staff to say, when are you going to return your marks? When do you anticipate finishing your marking? This information is branded into every Moodle assignment that they set up. By asking them for two dates, we've instantly addressed an issue in our feedback policy that the student now knows when they've got to submit and when they're going to get it back. We've gone a little bit further since then. Whilst it's helpful for them, we found that staff didn't actually want to say when they thought they were going to complete the mark. So we took some of the options away and we've made it more overt to them. We've set up more context in the assignments when staff are interacting with setting up an assignment. We're trying to put the information about what they need to provide just in time in the form when they're doing the form. We're also asking for more information. Who's actually responsible now for returning marks on an activity? In some cases, that's the academic. In some cases, that actually might be a teaching fellow, it might be a guest lecturer and things like that. Again, asking for this information here, we can give it to the students. If they have any queries, they don't have to go round the houses to ask who's the person I need to talk to. It's a simple select the person and that information there is then dealt with in terms of communicating with the members of staff and the students. We ask them for a marking criteria. We encourage people to use advanced grading methods. They're really good for articulating what students, how their work's going to be assessed. Not everybody wants to set it up when they're doing this. Now we have a really lightweight mechanism for asking for that information when they're going through setting the form. Then you can see it's presented to the students quite obviously. That information then means we can feed it into a workload tool we've got which presents all the information of a workload that a student has in terms of when the deadlines are, what the status is, whether it's marked, when it's going to be returned. That's only one part. We want to keep going a bit further with that. We've talked to staff. They want more indicators about the status of these things. How well effectively they are effectively meeting the assessment feedback policy rules in it. So we're looking at making a staff dashboard to basically highlight there when they have to do their marking. They've said when they intend to do it, we can tell them when that's coming up. We can give them notifications. We can tell them when it's breached and we can basically nag them to make sure they hit the time periods they want. That simple data capture allows us to start producing reports for admin staff basically saying you didn't hit the assessment feedback policy deadlines that you all agreed to. Why is this happening? It gives us data to go and start having conversations about where there are issues in a class. But these are quite simplistic. They're all about bits of text. We want to actually go even a step further. It's one of the tools that we're going to be building over the next six months is we're actually going to be building a customisable configuration guide which will allow us to take our assessment of feedback policies, look at every single one of them and put dynamic guidance on to every Moodle form about what they should be setting. If they change a setting away from a policy, for example, blind marking, they will get told if you're not going to do blind marking, you have to do double marking or you have to do some other process and stuff like that. So this is going to become a really interesting dynamic keeping them on the straight now for the policies that have been decided at the institution. This is the sort of thing we're starting to look at. This is not an explicit statement in the policy that you should use, an advanced grading method, but it is about being clear to the students and given that information is really important. Again, like you said, we're intending that this is going to start appearing on all the forms, things like the grading methods where staff are just typing in grades into that. They need to be aware that it is actually a university framework for what an 80% grade means, what a 70% grade is. Most people we speak to didn't realise that that was actually still in effect and that there were some defined marks for that or they did when they started, they forgot them, what they are or they've been tailored. So putting some of this information where they can see it is going to help us with that. So finally, again, we're seeing some of the mechanics. Now really just to finish up, my background in this has been working with game-based simulation learning and one of the things that came out of that is there's a guy developed one of the biggest and earliest computer games said. There's two important things about building computer games. You're going to be able to see the mechanics without any of the artwork, you're going to know what the rules are, but you're also going to see all the experience without understanding the rules. And he said the best game designers do both at the same time in their heads. What we found in this process is actually we need to start doing this with our policies. We can't be thinking about our policies independent of the technology. The technology is mediating the experiences. So we do the policies in isolation, we get technologies which are really artificial, they don't work. If we're entirely led by the technology, we've got no auditability about our rules, what the practices are, how they're consistent with and how they work. We need to do both of these things at the same time. That's basically