The Research Centre

So why should universities devote effort to caring about application programming interfaces (APIs)? I work at Jisc as a programme manager and have recently been involved in work that could provide some answers as to the benefits of APIs.

Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are nothing new. In fact, Google web trends show searches for the term API have been on an increase since their records began in 2004.  However, I would argue that there are still potential benefits to universities to be wrung from this venerable technology.

The simplest definition of an API is ‘an interface to a website or software that is designed to be used by developers not by end users’. It allows developers to access the data inside the website or software and use that data in other websites or other pieces of software.

Allows an easy transfer of data around your institution and with partners
The modern university has a mind-boggling array of software, hardware and websites. They also work in an increasingly collaborative environment.  To ensure the smooth running of the university and for ease of collaboration, it is essential that data can flow between the systems that make a university tick. APIs offer a route to addressing the problem. Read some examples of how institutions have used APIs to move data between systems.

Provides automation for laborious tasks
Data sharing between systems can often be difficult and can sometimes require the manual processing of information to take it from one system and to another. APIs offer potential cost savings in the process of moving data. There will be an initial set up cost for the API, but in the long run they should offer a more efficient and more scalable option than manual data processing. This should not only provide cost savings but should also allow the exploration of new opportunities which arise when working at a greater scale.

Improves attraction and retention of students
Universities operate in an increasingly competitive environment; they need to attract students. A university's brand is an important element in attracting students. APIs could offer opportunities to ensure a university's brand is well represented in social media and other websites where potential students are likely to be looking. An way of using APIs to help with retention would be developing smartphone applications. These could make it easier for students to settle in to life at the university, for example the recently developed NewcastleUniversity App.

These are all big issues for universities and APIs offer the promise of big rewards. But big rewards rarely come easily. However, when thinking about APIs we are fortunate that there is a wealth of good practice in successful implementation on the web and in enterprises. The report which I have been involved in writing offers some useful case studies and examples that people can follow when implementing APIs. It also includes some practical pointers on management and planning issues that need to be taken into account if APIs are to be implemented.

So, while APIs are sometimes viewed as some kind of young web 2.0 upstart, I would argue that they are a mature technology with a long history of solving exactly the kind of challenges every university is facing. I’d love to hear how you are using APIs – please do tweet @andymcg or comment below I'd also like to hear if you think I've got it wrong and that APIs are in fact old hat with newer technologies emerging that can offer better ways of
addressing these problems.

Read Andy’s team blog

Andrew McGregor

Phone

0203 006 6067

Email

a.mcgregor@jisc.ac.uk

15 January 2013

Learners consistently give their experience of assessment and feedback lower scores than other areas of their learning experience. I think that technology can actually improve the assessment process for learners and the staff that teach them.

Of course, as ever, it’s not just about new technology, but considering how this technology can help give your teaching staff an opportunity to rethink their approach to assessment and feedback. Encouraging the implementation of appropriate changes could benefit your students, helping them to develop skills for the future.

Let me share with you the guidance, tools and tips emerging from the Jisc Assessment and Feedback programme which could help get your students ready for the world of work.

A top tip for getting started

A good starting point is to consider the purpose of assessment, and whether your assessments are encouraging and evaluating the key skills and attributes your course is aiming to develop in learners. This includes those skills which are attributes for success in the workplace, such as self-evaluation and critical thinking.

Top trumps example

There is a great example of technology being used successfully for this purpose is at The University of Exeter. The COLLABORATE project have developed a six-dimensional model of assessment for employability to support their staff in planning their approach to work-integrated assessments.

This model is backed up by a set of ‘Top Trumps’ cards, which help tutors to identify off-the shelf technology ‘winners’ for each area of the assessment process, such as the PeerWise tool which can be used to support learners to peer review each other’s work, a skill critical for the workplace.

Advice from the experts

To hear more about how technology-enhanced assessment and feedback could support your learners and help graduates get ready for the workplace I would suggest having a listen to our e-Learning radio show Jisc on Air.

The show explores the issues with traditional assessment and feedback practices, and introduces some of the ways technology is being used to deal with those issues, for example at Cornwall College, where they are redesigning their assessments to help develop transferable skills such as self-evaluation and reflection. The University of Exeter also introduces the practical tools they are using to engage staff with redesigning their assessments to better meet the needs of employers.

The panel includes:

• Michele Shoebridge, deputy registrar, University of Exeter
• Doctor Gwyneth Hughes, senior lecturer of higher education, The Institute of Education
• Adele Oakes, programme manager and Tony Harris, project manager of the FAST project, at Cornwall College
• David Nicol, emiritus professor, University of Strathclyde.

Practical guidance and tools

You can find more information in the Effective Assessment in a Digital Age guide. This provides an introduction to the application of technology for assessment and feedback; with accompanying case studies providing examples of technology-enhanced assessment practices.

The assessment and feedback topic pages on the Jisc Design Studio provide a range of information and resources to help you explore how technology can be used to tackle your assessment and feedback challenges. These challenges include supporting peer assessment, helping learners better engage with feedback and meeting employers needs.

If you would like to know more about how technology can enhance assessment and feedback I’d be happy to chat.

Lisa Gray

Phone

0117 331 0774

Email

l.gray@jisc.ac.uk

11 February 2013

Discussions about the costs associated with responding to the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act tend to generate strong emotions. For some, the transparency and accountability FOI brings is worth nearly any price; whereas others view every pound spent as a pound taken away from an institution’s core mission. Part of the problem is often the scarcity of any reliable data on which to base any such discussions. But now, by combining the results of two separate research projects we are able to go some way towards rectifying this.

Following on from the success of our Calculating the Cost of FOI research project early in 2012 we repeated the project, but this time capturing 100 requests over a five month period to give us a much larger and more representative dataset regarding the true total costs associated with responding to an FOI request. The richness of the data we have gathered allows us to assess a variety of factors: from records management maturity to institutional size and examine the impact they may have on costs. The results from this Phase 2 project, launched today, also allow us for the first time to see the impact of requests on different functions within the institution: revealing some interesting and potentially significant results. The headline figure, however, is that according to this research it currently costs £144.93 per request for an institution to respond to each request it receives.

This, of course, then begs the question: how many requests are institutions receiving?

Since 2005 Jisc infoNet has been tracking request numbers, plus a whole host of other metrics, via its annual Information Legislation and Management Survey. The results for 2012 are also being launched today and reveal an increase in the average number of FOI requests received for the eighth successive year, albeit with less of a hike than in recent years, perhaps suggestive of a potential levelling off of interest. Once again the full results are available for institutions to review and analyse for themselves but the main finding: that the average number of requests per institution per month now stands at 10.7, when combined with the costs data we also now have, means that it is possible to start to calculate some overall costs for the sector with a greater degree of accuracy than has hitherto been possible.

Combining an average cost per request of £144.93 with the average number of requests per institution of 10.7 gives us an average cost per institution per annum of £18,609.  Multiply this by the 163 HE institutions in the UK listed in HESA data and you arrive at a figure of £3,033,268 per annum.

As ever of course, there are some caveats to bear in mind here: firstly the inherent dangers involved in using averages in what is a very diverse sector. Secondly: that we are relying on data provided by the 60 institutions that responded to the survey and have no way of knowing how representative or otherwise their experience is of the sector as a whole. And finally, we should not forget that the costs associated with the handling of requests do not represent the full picture: there are staffing costs associated with employing FOI and other compliance staff and any fees associated with obtaining specialist legal advice in response to particularly challenging requests. All of which will clearly add to the balance sheet, but in ways it is not possible to measure with any reasonable degree of certainty.

And as for the question of whether the £3m we estimate it costs the UK HE sector to respond to FOI requests each year represents good value for money? Well, now that we have provided the data we will leave you all to form your own opinions…

For further analysis and the full data from both the FOI costing project and the Information Legislation & Management Survey for 2012 please go to www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk

Please contact steve.bailey@northumbria.ac.uk for further details.

Steve Bailey

Phone

0709 2302850

Twitter

@sjbailey

Email

steve.bailey@northumbria.ac.uk

4 March 2013

With recent news of a school in Bolton ditching pens and paper for iPads, is the e-learning ‘battle’ being won? Peter Shukie, programme leader of education studies at University Centre, Blackburn College, argues that, ‘whatever is being done with technology new battle lines should be drawn in our approach. It ain't what you use - it’s the way that you use it.’

I recently attended a Jisc Regional Support Centre Higher Education Conference and Shukie’s strong views and opinions on the use of e-technology got me thinking about how and why we end up using certain technologies for learning.

Shukie divides educators into two tribes: the standardisers and the creatives. The standardisers follow a system of hierarchy, of ‘masters’ of education. They dictate to learners not only what they should read, but now also the kind of technology they should use. He equates them to X Factor judges dictating how someone should sound and what they should look like. If we’re not careful, he thinks we will be using technology to create a one-dimensional learning experience when, as I believe, it could be used to share and grow the ‘ecology for learning’ in many new ways.

So, how do we ensure learning exploits technology and not vice versa?

Shukie believes that Prensky, internationally acclaimed speaker, writer, consultant, and innovator in the field of education and learning, didn't get it quite right with his Digital Natives concept. Shukie’s Digital Pioneers project, carried out with undergraduates in 2012, which were all within Prensky’s grouping, did not find that learners born into a digital age had different expectations of learning.

Shukie’s project asked learners to create a learning resource using any technology, any pedagogical philosophy and any learner group to explore the potential of technologies in teaching and learning in the 21st century. What Shukie found was that in almost every case, results were reflective of a ‘master’ teacher-at-the-front-of-a-classroom style of teaching. Only a handful of learners explored ideas that used technology to take learning to different places, both physical and online, or looked to provide learning at different times from different ‘leaders’. Shukie discovered that you can’t remove stereotypes that years of teaching from the front of the classroom create. That is still what people think education is.

His suggestion to get people away from this conception is to use a musical analogy to encourage educators to explore different approaches to the use of technology within education. This aims to avoid heading towards an ‘e-learning singularity paradigm’, where specific technologies are dictated by institutional ‘masters’ as the ‘proper’ tools for learning as a result of best practice research.

He recommends three other approaches that instead, allow learners to use technology to decide what is best for them and help link skills required directly with community and workplace needs:

Pop technology

Shukie cites the development of the small-scale COOC (community open online course) project as a better way of learning than a MOOC (massive open online course). His course is open to local communities with an interest in a subject, using online discussions to develop their own way of learning.  Unlike MOOCs, the emphasis is on localised learning opportunities based on contributions from informal enthusiasts, who have limited (if any) formal teaching experience. He believes this will generate a wider discussion and progress learning beyond the usual academic suspects.

Punk, or EduPunk

This is an approach reacting against the commercialisation of education, where accreditation is generally unimportant, and where learning is self-generated with the community deciding the content. An example is the University of British Columbia's course "Wikipedia: WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem". The course involved creating articles on Wikipedia where student and teacher became peers. In its essence, learning takes place when learners feel inspired to discuss ideas, not at appointed times and places.

The principle of ‘open’ is important to fulfil this ambition. I think knowledge should not be bound within the confines of a costly journal, but should be publicly and freely available.

Folk, or Folksonomy

An approach to create knowledge through tagging, originated by people, not experts. Again this means that the interests of a community dictate course/learning content. A basic example could be Twitter, as only popular content is tagged and circulated within the community.

Today, you may see projects that crowdsource, asking the general public for their views and opinions. This method is being used more and more to expand our knowledge of a subject area. Used within an educational community this could help inform course content, themes of interest and demand.

Is Shukie a dreamer? He does recognise that we may have to wear ties on Tuesdays and have some learning dictated to us – otherwise, as he says, ‘who would choose to learn about fire safety training?’ But he hopes that if you enter the teaching profession, it’s your choice whether you become a standardiser or a creative. His belief is that learning and teaching methods are not just there to create consistency, efficiency, fiscal sustainability or even achievement. Education is about generating another set of voices for the future.

So, in summary Essa Academy in Bolton shouldn't put away the iPads, but make sure that those shiny screens do not outshine the minds of the people using them.

19 February 2013