 Thank you very much, thank you very much for that introduction. My name is Tom Lankson, I'm a Digital Learning and Teaching Specialist at the University of Portsmouth and joining me today for this presentation is Stuart Sims, who is? Sorry, I wasn't sure if that was on cue to introduce myself. Yeah, so I'm Stuart Sims also from the University of Portsmouth, so I'm a Senior Lecturer in Higher Education, which largely means I teach on our own impression of apprenticeship and things like that. So today, if I get the application sharing going, the session is called Co-creating Expectations. Stuart and myself have been working on this. Stuart's been working on co-creation elements and he'll explain more of that as we go through for a lot longer than I have. But for the duration that we had for lockdown and now coming out of that, we've been working very closely together on supporting academics, supporting members of staff within the university and looking at how we can use tools to support co-creation as an event and something that's going forward. So in the chat, I see people putting questions. Please do put them there because there's two of us will try and sort of jump in and answer them as we go. And if not, we can obviously do a Q&A at the end as well. And yes, hopefully you'll find something useful today. So to start with, we're using Vvox to kind of demonstrate some of this. So if you can go to on your phone or another web tab, Vvox.app and use the code that you can see on screen, which is 109-647-302. Although you can download the app, you don't need to for this. You can just do it on a web browser. They both work sort of perfectly well. And on the side, this is going to be relevant for the code will reappear. So if you don't get it yet, we can add that back in for you as well as we're going. So the first one here is what word or words come to mind when you hear co-creation? Bear in mind with the Vvox word cloud, it doesn't accept sentences or phrases. So again, I fully understand maybe people have an idea of something in a longer context. But at the moment, just single words, or if you use an underscore, you can do it that way to get a smaller phrase in there. And thank you for the code. Yes. And the code is, as you can see at the top here as well, 109-647-302. So got a minute to put this in. So while you're thinking about your responses to this question that Tom's throwing up, we'll just give a bit of context. And obviously, we could just ask you for your thoughts in the chat, but we want to be talking today about how we've been using and how we've been supporting others to use audience response systems of various kinds of participants to facilitate co-creation activities between staff and students. We'll draw on some specific examples, but we're not going to get too bogged down in the details because we want to be sharing a bit more sort of transferable practice. We're going to get you doing a few activities in a few different audience response systems. I've got Vvox here, I'll be using Padlet later as well. Their usage, as we're going to be doing here, isn't necessarily that novel in terms of the technical side of things. This is an adult presentation, so you might be expecting something very driven by the tech. But this is very much an attempt to just try and get you to think about tools you might be familiar with already, how they can be used to stimulate different kinds of discussions. So generative curriculum design discussions with students. I'll stop waffling over the dead air and let Tom walk you through. What's on the screen? Well, I think as you were just sort of leading to there, Stuart, the big one that's come come out is collaboration. So it definitely is that kind of with what we've been doing and what we're trying to sort of promote today. Is it definitely that collaborative idea of what you can do with your colleagues that you maybe support or the students that you teach. And in some cases, like for people like myself, the students that I teach are the colleagues that we support as well. It's kind of a Venn diagram. So it's quite interesting to see we've got challenging in there, but inclusive partnership, creativity. Is there anything that stands out for you, Stuart? Yeah, challenging stood out and I think we'll return to that at the end. So we'll try and leave some time for discussion. We're not a huge group today. So certainly through the chat or maybe through a muting later on, we can have pick up some of the areas where there are challenges. But I think these are all the kinds of words I would have probably said. And we want to some definitions just to set the context, which will pick some of that up as well. Thank you, Thomas. Very smooth. So this one from Boval and colleagues. So sums up a lot of what was on the previous slide, the co-creation. Ultimately, it's when staff and students work together collaboratively to create components of curriculum or pedagogic approaches. And we'll pick up a lot of examples that are more faced at the bottom one here, the pedagogical approaches. And as the name of the session indicates, one of the things that we've been encouraging and supporting and doing ourselves in our practice at Portsmouth over the last 18 months or however long COVID has been going on now is around setting expectations of how engagement should be managed and delivered. And that's expectations for staff and expectations for students about what you do and why in a classroom and how you do it and where that's going. And co-creating these elements is a good example of how to get students engaged from the very beginning and hopefully begin to address some of those challenges we've all been facing. Having to teach unexpectedly, remotely, all of a sudden. It's worth saying when I'm talking about co-creation that I think a lot of people, certainly a lot of the literature in the past pre-COVID, because it is collaborative, it is based on ideas like what else did we have in the word cloud? Teamwork. For example, these things are certainly for me, they conjure ideas of their face to face there because these things are generative, they're about you working with a group of people. Quite often co-creation is with a small group of students, so maybe student reps, maybe just the keen students, it can be whole cohort will pick up some of that later. But I think a lot of colleagues who I know at Portsmouth when COVID happens, they who do good work co-creating with the students, collaborating with students to design curriculum, to design pedagogic approaches. They almost just immediately assumed that that was done or at least on pause for the COVID time. So what Tom and I have been trying to do is to just try and lift those kinds of good practice that were happening across the institution anyway and suggest some alternative ways that you could manifest that. That you could manage that, that you could undertake that through a more remote but still hopefully interactive method. You just skip two slides ahead to the ladder, Tom. Oh, three slides ahead. That's the one. Sorry, I should maybe took the first part of the slides myself. This may be familiar to some of you, it's been around for a little while. But Boval and Bully developed this ladder in 2011 to try and understand where students can participate in curriculum design. And what the examples we're going to share with you, they tried to aim different aspects of this ladder. So at the very bottom of the ladder is a dictated curriculum. So essentially, lecturers will just do everything at their students. So the opposite of what Evan's just said in the chat that all learning teaching and the conservatise is going to be collaborative. That probably wouldn't ever be the case for you, Evan, whereas perhaps this, the old stage on the stage, the crusty academic stood at the front lecturing that would fit more down there. Because we're aiming towards, well, so Boval and Bully say a partnership curriculum, a negotiated curriculum. So not necessarily the very top of the ladder, the second wrong down where there's a negotiation. And that negotiation, as I say, could be a bit more challenging when carried out remotely. It can also be challenging because those kinds of negotiations can be fairly time consuming and we can be reluctant to give up time, which we should be dedicated to course content to have these kind of curricular pedagogical discussions with students. And some of the examples and tools we'll be sharing are ways to sort of make that a bit more efficient as well. But that does sometimes come with a bit of a compromise that you might have to choose a level of co-creation, which is to lower down this ladder than maybe you're aiming for, but might be more inclusive because it's allowing a broader scale engagement from a larger group of people. The area that I, sorry, if we go back a bit, from what Stuart said, one of the bits that brought me into this and to work with Stuart sort of much more closely recently was that the academics came to me asking about how to increase kind of Zoom breakout rooms engagement. And one of the bits for me was asking the academics, have you asked the students what they want? Because a lot of it was kind of what can we do as educators to make it more engaging and more exciting for the students. But actually, they hadn't really stopped to ask the students what the problem was and why they were disengaging in that part of the process. While we didn't use audience response in this case, we did sit down with some of the more, again, proactive students and got some really useful feedback that allowed me to help design stuff for the wider university context, but also help them to sort of shape their practice. One of the examples, for instance, was where they'd been doing role play previously. What they were doing was giving people script and they were just reading it off. And in a breakout room, the students felt no value in that. It's like, I can read what I meant to know, but there was no kind of interaction to it. Whereas the activities that were quite challenging, they found really beneficial because they were able to work on them individually. But as a group, if that makes sense, so they'd each take a part of that topic, look at it individually, but then come back and speak to each other in the breakout room. So it was interesting to hear this sort of the students talk about what they found useful and what they didn't find useful. And this brought me to where we are now, which is when we're sort of starting a new term, actually people coming in, be it on campus, be it online, however that might be, we need that expectation to kind of be grounded for everyone. What do the students expect from us? What do we expect from the students? But I think one of the big things was what the students expected from each other, especially in the digital framework. So actually it was really interesting to have that conversation and that opened my eyes and obviously Stuart has done a lot of co-creative stuff previously. And it was really useful to kind of get his expertise with what the students had highlighted for me. So just on that point there as well, we can't assume what we design is going to be welcomed by all students. And again, Stuart, if you've got anything you'd like to pick up on that one quickly. Definitely, but I think in response to Hazel's point in the chat, which is something which I think is a real advantage of the kinds of things that we're going to be talking about here, because a lot of the literature around co-creation, if you look into it, like a lot of the good practice that's been shared out there, it is often with those small groups of engaged students or is actually using audience response tools in the way that we're talking about. You can scale that up to a larger group more effectively. And I think sometimes it's a self-selecting sample where you try and run something, particularly if it's outside of the timetable, outside of the curriculum to engage students in something to design it, something pedagogic, something curricular, then you're only going to get the enthusiastic who come along. And exactly as you're saying, Hazel, not necessarily those who would really benefit from these approaches. Whereas if you embed these things early, which is why we've talked about this being co-creating expectations, and if you're doing it remotely using these kinds of tools, which don't have to be time consuming, and we'll move on to show some examples in a minute, then this is an effective way of trying to reach those, the wider audience. Now, it doesn't necessarily guarantee any ongoing engagement, but that's where formalizing the kinds of expectations you set, the kind of co-creation you do, closing feedback loops. So if you are creating things with students, not just doing that and then taking it away, feeding back about what's changed and revisiting these things to reinforce them, but we can pick that up as we go through. But 100% agree, Hazel, that it's not representative of the small group. Not a fan of Padlet, well, strap in. We've got some of that coming up, but we'll see how that goes. In terms of where we've used this, both in terms of our own practice, but also supporting colleagues at Portsmouth. Setting expectations is one of the ones we're going to talk about most today, because I think it's the most relevant for those kinds of issues around small groups not being inclusive. But we've also used it to design assessment criteria, design the content that's being used as part of a syllabus, as part of a taught course, and also to design assessment. Now, I won't dwell too much on particularly the assessment design, because any time I do it just turns into a long-winded discussion of quality assurance, which is not really relevant for what we're doing here. But just to say that we have examples where things have worked in quite a wide range of fields using these kind of remote co-creation tools. So we can maybe pick that up in the discussion later once we finish showing off the stuff, which is more about expectations. Tom. So what we've got here at the moment is obviously we've been, we used VVocs to start with, and we're going to, as we say, look at Padlet. But for this kind of bit, and for everyone's understanding of this, any one of these tools that I've listed, plus many more that I haven't, can be used to apply the principles that Stuart's talking about with co-creation. So Emma's just put, she can see them being useful in-person because of the anonymity. Yes, but in-person can also be online in-person. I don't know whether you're sort of going on both sides of that now. But a lot of them, like Neapod, for instance, can actually be used to embed it into like a Moodle canvas blackboard site and can be sort of completed after the fact. And again, lots of those VLEs also have that kind of facility to take some sort of response from an audience to, again, drawing the ideas that we're going to sort of go over and cover. So you take online to be in a different room. We've used Neapod and VVocs and Padlet actually as we have the license to all those really well in the different room scenario. We haven't as yet done much necessarily in-person. I know, for instance, again, within Science, who are big users of Neapod for us, they do a lot of things like draw it, that they can annotate blood work and all the rest of it and share that within an in-person classroom. But they've also been able to carry that on for the different room or online scenario. But something we'll talk about in a minute, which we've used Padlet for today, but you could equally use Neapod for and we'll kind of cover that in a minute. Jamboard, I know a lot of our academics like Jamboard for the fact that it's like a whiteboard, but there's multiple slides and again comes with the whole Google Drive type suite for education. Just to pick up on Emma's point about being useful in-person, absolutely. Nothing that we're going to talk about today necessarily has to be any different than if you did it in a classroom. And I think that's what's quite good about this and Hazel's point earlier about how it can scale things up because the engagement can be enormous. It can be in a room of 200, 300 students if you want it to. Whereas sometimes it's challenging to manage that engagement. As I said, that sometimes does still come with a compromise of how deep the cooperation can be for one type of a better term, how meaningful the contributions from the students can be. Absolutely, Hazel. That paddling can be tricky and we'll pick some of that up in a minute because this isn't a panacea. We're going to show some examples that have worked for us, but there are challenges with large cohorts. So they're potentially doing things in putting people in groups to break down the activity. So using multiple paddlets for different topics, for example. But then that restricts the extent to which you can respond to it in-person, for example. So it might be about laying out this as an iterative process where the paddling is used to gather feedback, which has then gone through afterwards because you can't always respond on the fly to things. Also, just to save Evan's question about persuading academic colleagues. That's quite a big one to get into. So we'll try and come back to that at the end if that's all right. So back to the V-vox, if you've still got the app open. It's a 10-second timer on this one, just a quick one. With a question of Bova and Bulley and colleagues outlined a typology of roles that students adopt in co-creation. What are they or where are they? So you can have up to four. You can do more than one. It did 10 seconds and it's obviously not long enough. So apologies for that. I thought that would be long enough. And this is one of those bits where when you're designing things, and I'm sure many of you have, what seems like a quick time to keep things moving may not be quite long enough when you're actually in practice. The answer is all of them. So all of them were correct. But this is purely an example to get us onto the next point of where this sits on the co-creative ladder. Stuart? Yeah. And I'm sure many of you here have used similar quizzes in tour sessions you've done particularly over the last 18 months, but generally. So the idea of running a quiz itself is hardly revolutionary to us. But what we wanted to flag up as its potential for co-creation for a different a couple of different perspectives. Now, the first way of exploring this is that it's useful as a knowledge check, but that can be from a co-creative point of view can involve you having to be on your toes quite a lot. So using this, it's sort of, you can see on the ladder, we've indicated this would be one of the lower levels. So it wouldn't be anywhere near partnership necessarily, but it would be moving away from just a dictated curriculum. And this works quite nicely with flipped learning, for example, if you have some content you're delivering online in advance of a synchronous live session, whether in person or online, or however you may want to deliver it. Then these kinds of knowledge checks about the subject matter can identify where the cold spots in your student's knowledge is. So you can respond by shifting the content to be about where they're struggling and perhaps dropping others, which you know they're gathering, they're covered well, they understand well already. So the co-creation doesn't feel perhaps hugely authentic in that regard, because the students don't necessarily have a say in where it's going. But on the other hand, they sort of do because they're letting you know what they need based on how well they've performed in the quiz. But as I said, that means you have to be quite hot on changing what you're going to cover. This would work quite well, perhaps for kicking off more of a seminar discussion than it would something quite practical or something, which is very theory rich or very content heavy. So you could explore topics around the topics. This might work better and say that humanities or social sciences perhaps than it would from some other disciplines. So we're saying this is not necessarily about competition as some of the quizzes are. I've always think of Kahoot, but the Neopott has the one where you climb up the mountain, doesn't it? It's not about the... I'm implying, yes. Thank you. It's not about particular students doing better than others. It's about trying to identify consensus where there's cold spots in the knowledge or where things are already very well covered. So you don't have to spend your time doing it. Now, also quizzes like this can be used as a kind of informal poll for temperature check about what people might want out of the curriculum. So you might build in some optionality to your sessions and say, we have three or four options of what we could talk about today. Which do you want to cover most and then use that to vote on it, which again would be a little bit more creative, but perhaps less of the actual authentic students might just pick topics they're interested in. They may not be ones that they're struggling with. They need to support quite so much. So using a quite simple quiz, which I'm sure many of us have used a lot recently, can be used in a couple of different ways to facilitate a bit more growth around co-creation, whether that's letting students choose what they want or you choosing what students need based on how well they've performed and their knowledge. And when I say letting students choose what they want, I sort of alluded to content, but that could also apply to pedagogical approaches. It could be, would you rather have this as a live session? Would you rather have a five minute video, a 10 minute video about this or what have you? So you can control those choices. So it's still sort of towards the bottom of the ladder. It's quite prescribed, but you're giving some students some say, some optionality and some sense of investment that they're getting what they want. Again, obviously, assuming that you eventually do deliver that. And Emma's point about fitting into very structured courses is something we could perhaps pick up later on because that I know of which could run for a while. But we have had some colleagues who do that kind of thing, which we can draw on later. Tom, anything to add on this one? No, not at the moment. But again, if we get any other questions about this as we go, please do come back to us with it. So we have a padlet that I will put in the chat if you wish to join. This is a theoretical one as an idea. But it's these are three learning objectives that you can see on screen that are for a module. And what the idea is, is the students can tie their answer to which learning objective they think works well, what they'd like changed. And it's that kind of notion that they can sort of upvote certain things they put weight in. They can, and again with padlet, we've just done an up and down, but you can actually score it up to 100 if you want to be really granular with that. And this is more, again, just to kind of, if for those that haven't maybe used padlet before, to have a go at adding something and tying it to an objective. So you click the pink button, we'll get a new thing, a new box up, add a new response. And once you've added your response, you get the three little dots and you can do connect to a post. And I can choose to connect it to a post. And then we can move it around and you can see what is tied to that. So again, this doesn't have to be done as live. It could be put into your VLE, into an email. And they can do this asynchronously as well. It doesn't have to be live. But the nice bit, I think as Hazel mentioned, is you have the anonymity side of it. And people then kind of start to engage when they see things happening on screen. Because they're doing it together. If they're after the fact, sometimes, and I'm sure we've all seen it, where there's a little bit of a tail off of, yes, you get the few people actually joining in with this, but then you'll get loads who maybe don't, if they're not doing it live. This will allow people to do that. Now, someone mentioned one of the problems with padlet can be the size and scope of the space. I know one academic, I don't have it to hand. But she's done the column format. And at the top of each column had placed every student's name. And what they were using it for is to share design and textile ideas. So they were using it very much in that they'd populate with their ideas. And they're kind of like someone mentioned, photos of their work, little videos of models they'd made, whatever the subject had been. And they could build up a portfolio within that that everyone could see. So you can see everyone else's idea around the subject. And actually it was a really good way to get people to engage in the process. And it got more people doing it because they got inspiration from other people's posts. You could see when people had posted, you could see who had done something first. So there was no real plagiarism in effect, but there was a lot of sharing of ideas and a lot of sharing of things. So yes, it was a really good text. Emma, feel free to contact me afterwards and I'll speak to the lecturer and see if she's happy for me to share the Padlet out as an example for your people. But it's that kind of idea that I think where Padlet is really strong is that there are lots of different ways that it can be used. If you're lucky enough to have the paid for version, you can have multiple boards as well. But even on the free version of Padlet, you can use the wall one I have here but you've also got Timeline, you've got the Mac version. And that's a really good one. Not so much in co-creative things, but just as an icebreaker at times, like where'd you like to go on holiday or where are you from? So you can build a picture of where everyone that's taking part that day is good. So the drawing tasks, if you're drawing, take a photo and upload it. Obviously within a near pod there is a drawing feature, which is where we did this kind of idea before. We had a few learning objectives up and people annotated it on screen and shared those with us in the same idea that we're doing here using Padlet. And I think that's my point of we have lots of different tools and you'll have different tools to us at your institutions or wherever you work. But that doesn't mean to say that any one tool is better than another. It's purely about taking the idea and adapting it ever so slightly in a new way to get the same results and to get that co-creative element in there. Stuart, have you got anything you'd like to pick up? Yeah, I think it depends on how you structure these co-creative activities. They usually have to come with quite clear instructions of what you find most important. So we had a point earlier in the chat about doing Padlet with a huge cohort of 500 students. Now that might be where you won't really strongly emphasize things like the voting, the thumbs up you could say, if someone's put an idea you like then just upvote it or don't vote it if you disagree. So rather than having 500 people or putting their own original thoughts you're getting a clearer idea of what that consensus is. But this very simple activity where we've just thrown up some learning objectives and then just asked for opinions on them, you can already see you've got some good ideas have come through like talking about the language being unclear and what have you and how perhaps it's too limited we're not looking at research methods we're just looking at specific topics. And this is exactly what we did with this exercise. These are learning objectives from a module I teach on and there's quite a lot of diversity in how you can take this from a co-creation perspective. You can say from one side of things this is just for clarification. So we can essentially go no further than this. I could just look at all the comments and say, okay, some of the languages of putting that's unpack some of the ideas. So I'll explain what some of the terminology means and that's particularly important because as a few people have alluded to sometimes co-creation is a bit of odds with quality assurance and not necessarily in terms of what the aims of quality assurance are more the time frames of things that you might need to get your modules approved months before you even see a student of course. So particularly with assessment. So this can be just useful for clarification. You may not be able to change these learning outcomes but you can explain things that are ambiguous. You can then also explain how they relate to the assessment design for example. But you can also use this for future looking for. It's no good for the kind of co-creation of expectations that we're talking about now. But you can co-create for future cohorts. You can say, well, we've got a lot of feedback that Learning Objective 2 was a bit ambiguous, didn't talk about research methods enough. So you can change it for the next cohort and feed that back to both cohorts to keep the co-creation going between different groups that you have come on board. But if you do have the capacity to change things based on this then that's even better because you can send back drafts of whatever has been over-viewed back to the students and say, okay, you told us this wasn't clear and this isn't specifically a story of learning outcomes. It could be about anything you can say. So we've changed it for this reason or most of you voted to say this was the most common problem. So we fixed XYZ. So this is a bit like getting feedback but feels a bit more agile and a bit more personalized to areas where you think the students would need that kind of support. Anything else? Just to pick a few things up from the comments of GDPR being one. For us, it's not been a real problem because of how we use Padlet and our students are separated by different domains. So Stuart and myself are at port.ac.uk for our email but our students are at my port. Within Padlet, the students in this are actually staff. So only the staff have access to the front end. Students have to come in and basically can't post with a name to it. It is only anonymous even if they just physically can't log in because of using the backpack account. So I think Emma put in the chat as well. We wouldn't ask them to share personal details. Like I say, I know some academics have put like their names on the top but has done that under discussion with the students and no one's had a problem because it's essentially a private board. But yes, for us it hasn't been a problem but I can see that if their people are logging in and sharing names, although you can set the board to be anonymous anyway. So it can be a tricky one but it's not one that we've had to worry about. And I think, yes, Hazel's put about students being put into groups and disliking being put into groups by us. One of the bits that came of the conversations I had with science was kind of a halfway house to that, especially with the more online based sort of delivery at the moment. Because in the classroom, they may be just on sat on the table and not know anyone but that's your group and you just have to get on with it. They may not like it but they'll get on with the task. The difference of that in the breakout room is that they won't necessarily talk and people don't turn the camera on and it stays quiet. The bit we came across was students put themselves into pairs or threes and if they were doing a group of maybe a five or a six, you'd mix the pairs up so that there was someone that they don't mind talking to so Stuart and I would be put together but then we'd be put with sort of Hazel and Sam just picking two random names up the chat that we don't know, their friends, but actually together we work as a force so you've got a bit of a mix of not them choosing everything but actually giving them some sort of ownership of knowing someone in the group to promote that discussion. I was just going to say, following up on that Tom, that a lot of the kind of things we're talking about are quite useful to do very, very early on so before students get stuck in particular patterns or friendship groups or what have you, I think where we wanted to focus on how you could set expectations about different activities here is doing that as early as possible means that you might get less of that resistance particularly I'm thinking with 11-4 students or where they're new to university teaching anyway putting them in groups in that way where they might be more open to talking to each other than they are to talking to you because they might be a bit more nervous or maybe being optimistic around that but the sooner you can use this to maybe set expectations and one of the things we have been using these kinds of tools for are just saying how people will engage so getting students to say we will turn up and have our microphones on when needed or not and engaging in why you're doing those things so it's surfacing some of the challenges that are coming up in the chat early on with students to discuss the benefits or challenges of engagement they may find. Yes I think from what Stuart was saying there as well Hazel's comment of some of the students especially level 4 now may not even know anyone because they haven't had a chance to meet anyone else yet so it's again that expectation conversation of how many of you know each other how many of you come from the same institution or how many of you got friends already and start with that conversation before you start like you say presuming things so I think we've kind of done this but Stuart this is the sort of the next stage the stage up on the ladder where you're drawing or sharing things on the screen is there anything else you'd like to sort of bring out from that? No, no, I think we've covered it and you've summed it up nicely there Tom it is moving up further because it's more generative it is getting ideas from students it's then I suppose how you follow through on those and the important part of where you might situate this on a ladder of co-creation as Tom alluded to earlier I find doing this in a synchronous session quite effective because as we've seen from just the example where you guys have been posting on the padlet you can flag up things that are unclear which can be just clarified immediately so it doesn't have to be a long drawing process you can say well this is what we mean so this is what you should do in your assessment you can do it asynchronously engagement I find tends to be a bit lower asynchronously but also it's perhaps a bit more transparent you can just leave it on your VLE page in perpetuity and people can refer back to it and what have you? So this is slightly longer it's a free text box but what areas of your practice would do you think would work best for co-creation? So this is again you should have a free box to start typing the answers so all that countdown timer sort of goes on I don't think I've seen the timer before I'm not even responding and I'm finding it stressful Apologies for the stress caused Yeah it was a bit I found within the PowerPoint plug-in to V-box you can set a timer to automate the process and keep people on track because it's one of those bits where if you were doing this as we were referring to with the quiz idea you would do with Cahoote set a timer per question so that you're trying to keep yourself on track you're not letting it run wildly off-base if you need to so that's about half the time for those that are responding and appreciate what people are saying as I say today we've used a mixture of PowerPoint with the V-box plug-in and Padlet because we are lucky enough to have both of those at the university this purely is an idea of as we say concept rather than specific tools we're not trying to sell one over the other you could do all of these things in multiple different audience response systems which again you sort of may be bringing up as we go now Other audience response systems are available and I think I I think if we're comparing them as people have been in the chat which is interesting to see and people talk about poll everywhere which I had used years ago but happened for a while I think I tend to like nearpod because I think it does a bit of everything but I don't think its individual versions are quite as good as some of the more standouts you specialize in things but I think Tom and I have had a very long conversation about this in the past this and Godzilla but that's another story so the problem I have with the Vvox plug into this and I know why it is what it is but it just shows data capture I have to actually bring in Vvox and present that full screen to show the results of that particular question there we are so VLE staff in training discovering new topics in online sessions curriculum delivery the content is relatively set but the format can be elastic balance of learning types flow of the topics establishing lists of useful links resources and folks groups and feedback sessions on VLE design so obviously while we have been talking about it in terms of staff student which again I know many people here will be supporting actually it really highlights that you could use this as well like myself where we are like you are asking for VLE design thoughts on that and the iterative process that we have to go through in terms of training and improvements for both staff and students you can offer some really useful things out there through that as well and depending on how big your social media reaches I know that we have got a fairly proactive so the Twitter and Instagram profile for Tel Portsmouth you could put things up there to again get some feedback from students you may not normally have access to again it depends on how many of the students follow you as an internal department but some really good kind of information and feedback there what that goes to here though is the collaboration space we are using that one in the kind of fully open collaborative collaborative idea where people can put anything they like down again this could very well be a padlet space or like the Neapod Collaborate Board or a free text answer could be a Google Drive Microsoft One Drive that kind of everyone has access to write whatever they like and it can be used to generate ideas as well as get feedback from things as a student I'm sure will go on to though the guidance for these sort of activities has to be very, very clear because it can go off topic quite quickly and quite wildly yeah absolutely this is probably closer to that version of quite generative dialogic discussions with students that certainly what I think of when I think of co-creation because you're getting a much more open view in their own words about what they want but depending on who the audience is that's going to have to be structured and scaffolded in different ways and the question that you ask is much more important here than the tool you use in my opinion although as I said some tools will allow you to use images which might be useful or more inclusive at times but with an audience like yourselves where you're all very well informed you know what we're talking about we can probably leave it quite broad and you'll come up with some interesting responses and someone mentioned on the board then that their students are our staff which is the same for myself so you know what's going to be understood more effectively whereas if you're coming with perhaps some level four students in the first week of their studies you're going to have to think carefully about how you structure co-creative discussions and that might mean that you naturally limit what they want if you just throw it wide open kind of Wild West assessment design to some first years where I really explain why you're doing that than that could be counterproductive or they just might not have the pedagogical literacy to come up with ideas that are going to be useful so you might need to do some unpacking of some concepts around that but also I am a big defender of just asking students what they want and seeing what happens it doesn't always mean that you have to follow through on it but again some of these tools they allow you to vote for more popular ideas I think that is one in near part of comparing arbitrary favourites of our tools there's a few people saying that the chat because I think you can say you can then get students to come up with their own ideas and other students can latch on to it and say yes that would work for me as well in quite an effective way and that way it moves a bit more up the ladder where you're not really having much of a rain over what's happening at all you're sort of saying here is a specific area what would you want to see and content it can be delivery style, it can be assessment it can be something more structural and this can be used in validation of programmes perhaps to develop new ideas for a highway course might look with a cognate group of students or perhaps for graduates that kind of thing that can be trickier audiences of reach but slightly going off topic here the conversation between Emma and Hazel in the chat has resonated very closely to my heart of tool selection as I mentioned we are lucky enough to have Nipod, Vvox and Padlet as well as the Google stuff that comes with the fact we're at the moment a Google institution but the three there that are more traditionally thought of as audience response tools we tried to offer academics a range of different things however the big one of defending favourite tools one of our colleagues who is a super lovely chap is a big mentor meter fan and I have been battling my head against the brick wall trying to get him onto the Vvox train because we have it and show that his best practice is shown with tools that we have access to and he agrees but when you're trying to learn a new tool a lot of it can just be I know how it works in this one it's the first like for me like Nipod was the one I first saw so it's kind of the one I'm most used to using so I'll always be like Stuart because I indoctrinated him early I got him into Nipod so it's what we both know I'm lucky that I've been able to get it kind of implemented for people to use and have some good use cases and examples through colleagues to help promote that tool but Mentimeter is a fantastic one it was just more than we could afford when doing other bits and pieces but I think yes personal preferences tends to be down to what you found first what you learned and then not wanting to have to re-learn how to do it another way one of the other arguments we get a lot of is what happens if you stop paying for this one and it goes to free so if people are already using a free version they're happy with at least then they know not much is going to change because of that because it's already free it's a battle I think people who do learning technology learning design are always going to be fighting I think it's just that bit of what I've worked out with Stuart is we can offer what we can offer and we can try and make it as easy for people to use certain tools if they haven't had access to them before I think a lot of the time that we need to almost take that step back and be system agnostic to what is it you're trying to do and how can we make that work for you in the tool that you have we have this one it's paid for and you can do it here but if you're not going to do that one how do I make this happen for you in Mentimeter I think just to bring it back to the co-creation I think this is a useful lens for people who are in a kind of learning technologist, academic developer role because co-creation what we've the point we've tried to emphasize through today is less about the tools it's about this is a kind of reframing of what they might be for thinking about how you can use things you might be used to already for a different purpose to achieve a different goal and actually if you're supporting colleagues to do that using co-creation as the starting point not using Mentimeter or Neapol as the starting point can be a very useful way of getting people to rethink because it might serve a very different purpose and as we picked up from a few people in the chat there may be inclusivity questions and basically people want to share images because it's more it's how they want to engage in that activity but you might not be able to do that on one of the tools in which case if you're facilitating engagement more effectively there's particular tool for that reason so to summarize before we have a few questions and one last question from us as Stuart just said that co-creation is more of a principle than a specific sort of practice and audience response can be used to facilitate that and work depending on the tool you use nicely in a large group sort of area, rethinking of the tools and the practices you may already have to fit that and as mentioned in the chat trying to find ways to engage students but it depends on them and what they want to engage with which again can be part of that co-creative nature of do you want it to be email do you want it to be Facebook, do you want it to be Moodle Chat, Canvas foreign boards, whatever the sort of means might be Stuart have you got anything else before we ask our last question no I don't think so so this one's 30 seconds and to go back to that point of someone in the chat earlier saying they didn't like Padlet have you ever tried co-creation so have you still got your Vvox app open, the code is still 109 647 302 have you heard what we've said have you actually tried co-creation and maybe you didn't realise you've done it and then we'll have hopefully a couple of minutes for any questions that people might want to throw our way well people are reflecting on whether we've made them think about what they've done might be co-creation I'll come back to the question earlier from I think it was Evan but it feels a long time ago now about how you encourage colleagues to actually engage in it in the first place and the reason we're sharing this practice now is because we had and it certainly was by no means blanket success we're not trying to claim that everybody now co-creates everything with students all the time but we sort of saw an opportunity with the shift to online learning due to Covid that a lot of our colleagues some of them doing some very innovative practice some of them who have been teaching for a very long time and doing a very good job of it everyone was sort of all back to square one to some degree or maybe felt like that and actually co-creation we managed to pitch as not a solution but one of the ways you could address those concerns that you could if you didn't know if your usual learning and teaching or something new you wanted to try it were going to be well received by students then asking them and that could be about content it could be about curriculum because you might want to focus on different topics in different ways then having a co-created approach in any other ways we've talked about or others then quite a few people latched on to that and used it quite early on to formalize things and we built a lot of guidance around that for colleagues about how you can formalize expectations so to bring a background to co-creating expectations as a topic we had people who would write learning partnership agreements where they would talk about the responsibilities that students would have and staff would have about their engagement for example so that's more co-creating engagement than it is the actual activities but as I said I'm not claiming that we had 100% enthusiasm from staff or students for that matter for co-creation but I think using these tools for just very briefly for small co-created interventions or just sometimes just to get dialogues going has proven effective in lots of different areas of the institution and the bit we found is it's as Stuart said at the beginning it works slightly better when you're setting it as an actual expectation at the beginning of a course than it does trying to pick it up halfway through or three quarters of the way through when you're getting nearer exam times or supporting that kind of assessment where you're fighting a battle to get people back on board it's easier to maintain that engagement if you have a good conversation to start with and the idea hopefully is that these tools offer different ways to facilitate that conversation maybe are quieter or don't want to speak up but they'll press a button on screen and Ed's put a comment of an early bad experience with the tool can have a negative impact which is very true and I think we've probably all seen that one of the bits I saw did he fest not the last online one but the last one we basically it was about March just as the pandemic was about to hit and I saw a speaker there say something that resonated to me which is the current Gen Z of students aren't frightened by technology for them it's if it doesn't work it's not me that it's not working it it's the tools terrible and they'll ditch it and it can be very hard to get them back on board after that whereas maybe some older people will say oh I can't work this but I'm a technophobe it's not the system it's just I don't know how to use it and they can equally disengage but it's quite interesting to hear the approach of one person blaming themselves and the other person blaming the tech but either way you're going to get some drop out so it's being very careful with that so at that point does anyone have any questions thank you very much for those who have attended dropping off does anyone have any last questions before we wrap it up covered most of the questions we go through yes thank you Emma nice to see you as even though you're just a photo this time but nice to see you again as well if you do want to get in contact with us it's tom.lanston.port.ac.uk if you want to send an email to me and we'll offer any sort of help that we can going forward glad to hear in the comments and it's quite useful particularly as based on the last question a lot of you have done quite a lot of co-creation already so we're very much of the mind that we just wanted to get people thinking about things they're probably already doing but different ways that you can do them so thank you for the interesting discussion in the chat throughout as well yeah so sometimes it's just nice to know that you're not alone in the battle sometimes it's nice to know that everyone else is fighting the same fight and it's not you it's just how things are thank you Tomastry it was a really interesting session if you're happy with me to end the recording now I'll go ahead and do so yeah perfect