Broaden your horizons and read how King's is transforming Digital Education
The purpose of this blog is to provide a centrally supported space to capture and share digital education practice from across King’s College London. It’s a community contribution blog for individual and teams working in this area and provides an opportunity to promote initiatives to a broader audience, both internally at King’s and externally across the sector. Continue reading “Welcome to the Digital Education Blog”
In the Law Faculty, we trialed providing recorded audio feedback for formative assessments in Contract Law. The result? Of the 91 students who had received either recorded audio feedback or written feedback for their assessments, 66% preferred recorded audio feedback. 3 of the 4 staff members who responded to our survey also preferred providing recorded audio feedback.
The NSS score for “Assessment and Feedback” at KCL remains stubbornly low at 68%. With the growing body of literature which extols the virtues of recorded audio feedback, we decided to see if it works for Law. We also wanted to investigate the effect it has on students with particular specific learning difficulties.
The platform which we used for providing feedback was the Assignment Tool through KEATS (Moodle). Turnitin also has an audio feedback tool but this only allows for three minutes of feedback to be recorded which felt unnecessarily restrictive.
The Law School Professional Services team set up the Assignment Tool submission link on KEATS. They also created a drop-down menu which allowed for grouping of the students by tutorial group. The Law TEL team created bespoke guidance for the teaching team on using the chosen technologies.
The student submission process was almost identical to the standard Turnitin submission process and we doubt whether many of the students even noticed the difference.
We used Kaltura Express Capture to provide the feedback. This was easy to use (although it was reported by tutors that in order to record the feedback it did necessitate rather a lot of “click throughs”).
In our instructions to students, we requested that they number the paragraphs in their submission to make it easier for us to refer verbally to specific points in their answers.
In our training for markers, we suggested that the feedback should be between 3 and 5 minutes long. We suggested the following structure to markers:
Students completed three pieces of formative work for Contract Law. Students either received written feedback, recorded audio feedback or a combination of recorded audio feedback with a few comments on the paper. We only surveyed those students who had received recorded audio feedback or recorded audio feedback with some comments written on the paper for at least one formative assessment (i.e. we did not survey those students who had only received written feedback).
We were interested in finding out about the experience of students with a specific learning difficulty. Consequently, in our survey we asked whether students had been diagnosed with or suspected they may have: dyslexia, dyscalculia, dyspraxia, dysgraphia or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
5 of these students had been diagnosed / suspected they have a specific learning difficulty. Of these 5, 4 preferred recorded audio feedback and 1 preferred written feedback.
16 students received a combination of recorded audio feedback and written feedback for at least 1 assessment.
5 of these students had been diagnosed / suspected they have a specific learning difficulty. Of these 5, 2 preferred the combination and 3 preferred written feedback.
4 members of staff (out of a team of 7 colleagues with marking responsibilities on the module who provided recorded audio feedback) responded to the survey. Of those, 3 of the 4 preferred providing recorded audio feedback and 1 preferred providing written feedback. None of the 4 members of staff who responded to the survey had provided a combination of recorded audio feedback with a few comments on the paper.
Whilst the tech served the desired purpose, there are a number of ways in which it could be stream-lined. If the following issues with the technology were resolved, this would make the process much easier for staff:
When given the choice between recorded audio feedback and written feedback, the majority of students prefer recorded audio feedback. The most common 5 reasons they gave were:
In terms of students with specific learning difficulties, the majority of these students also preferred audio feedback to written feedback.
When given the choice between recorded audio feedback, written feedback or recorded audio feedback with some comments written on the paper, students preferred the combination. (Please note, however, that the sample of students who were given the combination was very small and it was only 1 tutor who provided this method of feedback.)
However, students reporting specific learning difficulties did not favour combined audio and written feedback. Given the option, the preference for them was a return to the familiarity of purely written feedback. It may have been that the combination of both feedback formats made it more challenging for the students with specific learning difficulties to interpret the key take-home message(s) from the feedback. Thus, the combined approach, rather than clarifying or supporting the comments made, actually muddied the waters.
When it came to staff, the most common reasons why the three staff members preferred providing recorded audio feedback to written feedback were as follows:
The commentary from our students and their clear preference for audio feedback supports current pedagogical research regarding the benefits of recording audio feedback above traditional written feedback, such as the perception amongst our students that the feedback experience is richer and more personal. We know from Caruthers et al (2015) that this leads students to be more likely to engage with their feedback. Also, the perception that feedback was both greater in volume yet easier to understand supports Chaing’s (2009) claim that audio feedback provides a greater depth to feedback in comparison to uncontextualized written feedback comments.
Though our overall cohort of students who declared a specific learning difficulty was admittedly small in our data set, it was still interesting to see that these students experienced recorded audio feedback in a more positive way than compared with their past feedback experiences. Though it is clear that for these students particularly, a mixed approach to feedback (i.e. providing a combination of both audio and written feedback) should be avoided.
Overall, colleagues’ experience of providing audio feedback was positive and once familiar with the recording process and given clear support on how to format their audio feedback (including the appropriate length for such feedback to ensure consistency amongst markers), colleagues were able to leave (according to our students) greater volumes of clear, individualized, meaningful feedback. We would, therefore, recommend that other colleagues who have not yet provided audio feedback to their students try the medium as our experience has been, overall, extremely positive from both a student and staff perspective.
Caroline van Hensbergen is a Senior Lecturer in Law (Education) at the Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London.
Dr Michelle Johnson is a Lecturer in Law (Education) and Faculty Inclusive Education Lead at the Dickson Poon School of Law, King’s College London.
KEATS will be upgraded to Moodle 4.4.1 on Tuesday 16 July 2024. As part of this upgrade KEATS will be placed into Maintenance Mode and unavailable to staff and students between 06:00-16:00 (UK Time).
This upgrade introduces several enhancements focused on refining the user interface and making it easier to edit your KEATS pages.
Check back on the blog after upgrade for a video highlighting upgraded features.
Enhancements include:
Please note, faculties and departments use KEATS in different ways and may have different templates and approaches for you to be aware of. If you are in the middle of teaching during this upgrade and are experiencing unexpected changes, please do contact your Programme Team in the first instance.
Part 2: My experience and reflections
Part 1 of this blog can be found here: https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/digitaleducation/exploring-the-digital-frontier-revolutionizing-feedback-delivery-with-excel-and-vba-macros-part-1/
I embarked on this journey to a few years ago when I led a large course with more than 700 students and a team of 15 markers. It was a challenging for an early career lecturer to manage the administrative tasks and collaborate with the whole team: standardization, moderation, and uploading/creating feedback documents. The demanding nature of the courses allows for no mistakes or human errors. Working through the clunky and often user-unfriendly interface of Moodle/Turnitin is another difficult obstacle: one would require the Internet to do the marking and as some other colleagues would agree that we often work better off the Internet. Traditional methods were often time-consuming and inconsistent, resulting in delayed feedback that left students wanting more. The technology-driven solution aimed to address these challenges head-on. When I joined KCL in September 2022, I faced the same problems and have been made aware of different initiatives at KBS to improve the feedback and assessment process at KBS. I gathered my own systems over the years and implemented the process during the Jan 2023 marking season. Over the Spring Term 2023, I refined the process with feedback from colleagues who shared the excitements and interest. In June 2023, I presented at the festival to share the practices and implementation strategies for an innovative automation system.
The process involved harnessing the power of Microsoft Excel and VBA Macros within Microsoft Word. These technologies allowed us to streamline and automate feedback delivery. Imagine, no more laborious hours spent typing feedback comments and no human errors involved in exporting and uploading the feedback documents to Keats/Turnitin! Instead, we could focus on providing students with valuable insights to help them excel.
**Challenges Faced:**
Of course, no transformative journey is without its challenges. Some educators were initially resistant to change, finding the prospect of learning VBA Macros daunting. Additionally, ensuring the new system was compatible with various devices and platforms presented a technical hurdle. As I mentioned in the guidance (see from my SharePoint), the set-up and troubleshooting at the beginning can be quite a challenge, particularly for colleagues using the MacOS system (it’s less so for Windows users). Compatibility issues were addressed through rigorous testing and continuous monitoring of system performance. Clear communication with your marking team is also needed to make sure everyone is on the same page with the new system.
But I promise it’s worth the effort and the subsequential usages will be a much smoother sail. And from a marker’s perspective, it is much less work than working through the traditional channels.
The journey from traditional feedback systems to an automated approach using Excel and VBA Macros has been nothing short of transformative. It’s a testament to the power of technology in education, where innovative solutions can overcome challenges and improve the overall learning experience.
As we continue this path of exploration and adaptation, the future of feedback delivery looks brighter than ever to improved student satisfaction and educational outcomes. I hope that a wider adoption of the process could help deliver a more insightful and time effective feedback to our students, thereby addressing the burning issues identified from the student surveys, as well as helping deliver impacts to the quality of feedback giving and student experience, as identified in King’s Vision 2029 and the TEF framework.
It takes time and communications with colleagues to identify compatibility issues and resolve them. So far, the method has been used by six Economics courses at KBS, two from the University of Glasgow; and colleagues from Marketing and Adult Nursing, have expressed their interests in using it in their courses.
It is definitely not perfect, and I am very much looking forward to feedback, comments, and of course successful implementations of colleagues.
The blog discusses a transformative journey in education, initiated during The Festival of Technology 2022 at KCL. It explores the adoption of Excel and VBA Macros within Microsoft Word to revolutionize feedback delivery. The main reasons for this change were to enhance feedback quality and efficiency, addressing challenges like resistance to change and compatibility issues. Through workshops, ongoing support, and rigorous testing, the adoption of technology resulted in a more efficient, user-friendly, and collaborative feedback system, empowering educators and improving the overall learning experience.
I would like to thank KBS colleagues, Jack Fosten, Dragos Radu, and Chahna Gonsalves for their encouragement, important suggestions and feedback as well as allowing me to pilot the process in their modules. I also thank various colleagues across other faculties for providing feedback and suggestions as well as identifying compatibility issues (with solutions).
For additional resources, including the workshop slides and a detailed guide with relevant codes and FAQs, please refer to the SharePoint folder linked here.
I am a Lecturer in Economics at the Department of Economics, King’s Business School, King’s College London. I am also an academic supervisor at the Institute of Finance and Technology, University College of London, and a chief examiner for the University of London International Programme (Econometrics). Before joining King’s, I lectured and conducted research at the London School of Economics as an LSE Fellow in Economics, and at the University of Warwick as a postdoctoral fellow (in Economics). I completed my PhD in Economics at the University of Nottingham in 2018.
I have lectured courses in econometrics and macroeconomics at King’s, LSE, and Warwick, and led seminars (tutorials) in various courses at Nottingham. From March 2023, I am the GTA Lead at King’s Business School.
Part 1: The practical guide
In today’s rapidly evolving digital age, the need for efficient and effective systems in education is more pronounced than ever. Traditional platforms like Moodle and Turnitin have served us well, but as educators, we must acknowledge their limitations in providing timely, user-friendly, and collaborative feedback on assignments, exams, and dissertations.
This tutorial aims to be your guiding light towards a better, more streamlined approach to feedback delivery. Drawing upon my workshop presented during The Festival of Technology 2022 at KCL, where I shared practical insights and implementation strategies for this automation system, we’ll delve into the fascinating world of Excel and VBA Macros within Microsoft Word. This comprehensive resource builds upon the principles discussed in that workshop.
By embarking on this journey, you’ll equip yourself with the skills and knowledge to revolutionize your approach to feedback giving. Here’s what you stand to gain:
1. **Efficiency:** Say goodbye to the laborious and time-consuming task of manually providing feedback using KEATs (Moodle/Turnitin). With Excel and VBA Macros, you’ll learn how to automate the process, saving valuable time that can be redirected towards more meaningful feedback and interactions with your students.
2. **User-friendliness:** Discover how to create a user-friendly feedback documents for both yourself, the marking team, and your students. Your feedback system will become intuitive and accessible, ensuring that learners can easily understand and act upon your comments with a nicely formatted feedback document.
3. **Collaboration:** Break free from the constraints of limited collaboration within traditional systems. The method will allow a marking team to efficiently collaborate and moderate, making feedback delivery a seamless and cooperative effort.
4. **Comprehensive Feedback:** Dive into the world of detailed and constructive feedback. You’ll gain the expertise to provide tailored insights that empower students to excel in their academic pursuits.
This tutorial isn’t just about learning a new tool; it’s about transforming your approach to education. By mastering Excel and VBA Macros for feedback delivery, you’ll become a more effective educator, making a lasting impact on your students. The system will:
– Enhance your teaching methods, creating a more engaging and supportive learning environment.
– Free up your time that was spent on administrative tasks or dealing with Turnitin/Keats for more meaningful activities such as preparing feedback comments and communication with your team and students.
– For repeated courses/assessments, you can prepare a bank of modal comments for lateral uses, as well as a record of common mistakes and suggestions for improvements to communicate with students.
Education is a dynamic field, and keeping pace with technological advancements is essential. The automation possibilities offered by Excel and VBA Macros are not just practical but also intriguing. Discovering how to harness these tools to optimize your feedback process can be genuinely exciting.
For additional resources, including the workshop slides and a detailed guide with relevant codes and FAQs, please refer to the SharePoint folder linked here. This tutorial serves as a bridge between the insights shared during the workshop and the practical implementation of an automated feedback system. It’s an opportunity to further explore and master these valuable techniques, all while enhancing the overall learning experience for students. Join us as we embark on this transformative journey together.
Part 2 of this blog can be found here: https://blogs.kcl.ac.uk/digitaleducation/exploring-the-digital-frontier-revolutionizing-feedback-delivery-with-excel-and-vba-macros-part-2/
The Centre for Technology Enhanced Learning (CTEL) has a wide range of new development sessions available to all staff. These sessions range from how to record, edit and upload videos; creating interactive learning resources using Kaltura, our video and media service; as well as various workshops on using KEATS, our Virtual Learning Environment.
These sessions will be run by Microsoft Teams Meetings. Click the Skills Forge links below to find timings and book on available sessions. Please contact ctel@kcl.ac.uk for more information.
Introductory Session
KEATS
Content Creation and Video Editing
Delivering synchronous online teaching
Assessment
Internationalisation
Can I check what my students have previously uploaded?”
An academic colleague had used Blackboard (another Virtual Learning Environment) before coming to the Faculty of Natural, Mathematical & Engineering Sciences (NMES) at King’s. He asked if KEATS, our Moodle instance, could behave like Blackboard and allow students to submit multiple attempts to a programming assignment any time they want.
After a follow-up call with the academic colleague, it became clear that the aim was to be able to access anything students had uploaded prior to their final submission, as the latter might contain a wrong or broken file, and grade with reference to a previous submission (programme code or essay draft).
He had the following requirements:
This investigation looks at practical solutions to administering programming assignments as well as non-programming ones such as essays.
In a Blackboard assignment, students are required to click a Submit button for the markers to access their work. If multiple attempts are allowed, students can submit other attempts at any time, which will be stored as Attempt 1, Attempt 2 and so on and are available for the markers to view. This way, staff can review previous submissions, however, they cannot access drafts.
The first step was to investigate the options and settings in Moodle Assignment, which is the tool that was already used by most colleagues for similar assignments.
With our current default settings, students can make changes to their uploaded files as much as they want, and submission is finalised only at the assignment deadline. Although instructors can see the latest uploaded files (draft) even before the deadline, files removed/replaced by students will no longer be accessible to staff. This means, only one version is accessible to markers.
Multiple submissions can be enabled with the use of the “Require student to click the Submit button” setting for staff to review previous attempts, as on Blackboard. Feedback can be left on each attempt. However, students cannot freely submit new attempts because staff need to be involved to manually grant additional attempts to each student. Submissions are time-stamped and can be reviewed by students and markers, but students can only get notification emails after grading whereas markers can get notifications for submissions. Our problem was not resolved yet.
We then considered Moodle Quiz, which some departments at King’s already use to collect scanned exam scripts: a Quiz containing an Essay-type question that allows file upload.
While exams usually only allow one single attempt, Moodle Quiz can be set to allow multiple attempts (Grade > Attempts allowed). The “Enforced delay between attempts” setting (from seconds to weeks) under “Extra restrictions on attempts” may be used to avoid spamming attempts. Student can submit new attempts as often as needed because no staff intervention is needed. The drawback is that there is no submission notification or emails, but the quiz summary screen should indicate to the student that the file is submitted. The Quiz attempts page for markers allows for easy review of previous attempts and feedback on each attempt. It is also possible to download all submissions as in Moodle Assignment. This was recommended to the academic colleague as an interim solution while we continued the investigation.
Regarding unlimited re-submissions, Quality Assurance colleagues reminded us that students may challenge (i) a perceived inequality in opportunities to get feedback, or (ii) subconscious bias based on previous submissions. Good communication with students and a structured schedule or arrangements should improve expectations from both sides.
Although the Moodle Quiz appeared to be a solution, we also considered other tools, some of which are readily integrated with KEATS at King’s:
Turnitin assignment allows multiple submissions as an option, but re-submissions will overwrite previously uploaded files. Alternatively, if it is set to a multi-part assignment, each part will be considered mandatory. However, the workflow for Turnitin assignment is not optimal for programming assignments.
Turnitin’s Gradescope offers Multi-Version Assignments for certain assignment types. It is available on KEATS for the Faculty of Natural, Mathematical, and Engineering Sciences (NMES). However, its programming assignment does not support assignment versioning yet.
Edit history is available for Moodle Wiki and OU Wiki; whereas Moodle Forum, Open Forum, Padlet and OU Blog allow continuous participation and interaction between students. These tools could be useful for group programming or other social collaborative learning projects, which is not a direct replacement for an individual programming assignment but an alternative mode of assessment.
Portfolios: Mahara has Timeline (version tracking) as an experimental feature. This may be suitable for essays but not for programming assignments.
Tracking changes is an important feature to show development in programming assignments or essays, and cloud platforms (OneDrive, Google Drive, GitHub) can host files and track changes. When used for assignments, student can submit a Share link to allow instructors to access and assess their work and how the work evolved over time. The disadvantage for this option is that the grading experience will be less integrated with Moodle. Some cloud platforms offer a File request feature where students can submit their files to a single location.
Industries such as software development use Git as a standard and all changes are tracked. GitHub offers GitHub Classroom, and it can be used with different VLEs including Moodle, but it is not readily integrated with KEATS and requires setup. There may be privacy concerns as students need to link their own accounts.
KEATS Quiz matches the case requirements and was recommended to the academic colleague. It went smoothly and our colleague mentioned there were no complaints from students and they are happy with the recommended solution. It is relatively easy to setup and straightforward for students to submit. Clear step-by-step instructions to staff and students should be enough, but trialling this with a formative assignment would also help.
Depending on the task or subject nature, other tools may work better for different kinds of tasks. TEL colleagues are always there to help!
Antonio is a Senior TEL Officer at the Faculty of Natural, Mathematical and Engineering Sciences (NMES).
September 2023
The Centre for Technology Enhanced Learning (CTEL) has a wide range of new development sessions available to all staff. These sessions range from how to record, edit and upload videos; creating interactive learning resources using Kaltura, our video and media service; as well as various workshops on using KEATS, our Virtual Learning Environment.
These sessions will be run by Microsoft Teams Meetings. Click the Skills Forge links below to find timings and book on available sessions. Please contact ctel@kcl.ac.uk for more information.
Introductory Session
KEATS
Content Creation and Video Editing
Delivering synchronous online teaching
Assessment
Internationalisation
The KEATS Education Templates (KET) are a set of standardised templates that have been designed to improve the digital learning experience for students at King’s College London. The templates adhere to UXD (user experience design) good practice, and are designed to be performant, scalable, and in line with accessibility standards.
The KET were developed in consultation with King’s students and academic and professional services staff. They were, and continue to be, steered and shaped by the needs of their users.
Three formats for the template are available for use.
Collapsed Topics
Grid
Topics
The benefits of using the KEATS Education Templates, include:
User Experience: The templates are designed to be easy to use and navigate, making it easier for students to find the information they need.
Scalability: The templates are designed to be scalable, so they can be used for courses of all sizes.
Consistency: The templates help to create a consistent look and feel across all KEATS course pages, which can help to improve the overall user experience.
You will find guidance on implementing the templates on the KEATS Education Template (KET) Guidance page.
The guidance includes step-by-step instructions for adding the template to your KEATS page and a checklist of tasks required to edit the page after applying the template.
The first page of the guidance (Overview) includes links to the importable templates, as well as example courses with the templates applied.
Fariha Choi is a Learning Technologist at the Centre for Technology Enhanced Learning and has been with CTEL since June 2021. She has a particular interest in educational multimedia and has worked as a Learning Technologist, eLearning Developer and Learning and Development Manager for the past 11 years.
Between July 2022 and February 2023, the SSPP TEL team conducted a pilot project to improve the student experience when submitting assignments by creating a special area for students to check the plagiarism/similarity score of their assignments. The goal of the pilot was to make it easier for students with Mitigating Circumstances and the Programme Office staff to manage the process of submitting assignments to KEATS.
Any student who is not subject to Mitigating Circumstances can submit a draft and/or reupload their submission as many times as they wish up to the assessment’s original due date. Many students use this opportunity to submit a draft to check their similarity score before they make their final submission. At the moment, due to technical limitations within KEATS/ Turnitin, students who are granted an extension to an assessment via the Mitigating Circumstances process cannot submit a draft to check their similarity score; they are only allowed to submit once, and after the due date for the assignment passes they no longer have the option to upload their final version.
This is particularly problematic for students who have submitted a draft (sometimes long before the original due date) and then realise they need to apply for Mitigating Circumstances: as they are not able to delete the draft themselves, this draft will be considered their final submission and their MC claim may be rejected on the basis that they have already made a submission. In some departments, PS Staff sometimes agrees to submit and/or delete a draft for a student, but this is time consuming, not consistently applied, and it relies too much on PS Staff being available and inclined to help outside of their normal duties; it is also not sustainable when taking into account the very high number of MC claims we process at the moment.
The departments of Geography and Global Health and Social Medicine in the Faculty of SSPP took part in the initial pilot project for their re-sit and dissertation students, and the Similarity Checker (SM) area was created and placed on their Handbook pages on KEATS. Accompanying it was a video and PDF to explain to students how to use the SM, as well as a warning text to reinforce the idea that this did not count as a submission and would not be checked by staff.
Feedback from this small cohort of students led to some revisions and changes to the SM, the most notable of which was around the language used. We had used the words “test area”, meaning to check or trial something, but students for whom English was not their native language found this confusing and equated “test” to mean exam. This was revised and the wording was changed from “test submission area” and “test area” to “Similarity Checker” and “practice area” respectively.
Once we were happy with the revisions, the SM was then rolled out to the rest of the School of Global Affairs, War Studies, and Education, Communication and Society. All Similarity Checker areas have the same layout, same wording and same instructions for parity across all the Schools. Communications for staff and students were also created by Soshana and these were used by Departments to make students and academic staff aware of the existence of the SM.
The Similarity Checker is made up of several parts. This includes an introductory text explaining what it would be used for, how to use it and a disclaimer that nothing submitted here would ever be moved nor assessed. An explainer video and PDF instructions were added to ensure accessibility and inclusive design were adhered to, so that all students would be able to clearly understand the functionality.
The submission areas were divided by level and surname. There is no functional necessity for this, but it aims to prevent Turnitin from getting overloaded by all students in the one department trying to access it at the same time. If students submit in the wrong area there are no effects on their score or submission.
A survey was created by Soshana and shared with all participating Schools, with almost 100 responses. Feedback was generally positive, with students highlighting how the SM improved their experience and confirming that it constitutes an equalising factor for students with extensions. Overall, 90% of respondents have used the SM, 93% found it useful, and 16% used it in the context of an assessment extension (mitigating circumstances).There was also some negative feedback from students who did not find it particularly beneficial, mainly due to the long turnaround time for their score after their third submission, as well as the fact that their score changed repeatedly when uploading a new draft of the same work, depending on how close the assessment due date was. These concerns will be addressed, and elements of response will be provided in future communications.
The pilot project was a successful start to improving the experience of students and staff using KEATS and Turnitin during their submission period. This was initially to improve the experience of those with Mitigating Circumstances, but we can see that many students without extensions are also using it to check their work.
Next steps will include rolling this out further to other Schools or Departments so that all students in SSPP can access it. Some Departments have their own versions, which we would like to replace with this more modern iteration of the Similarity Checker.
As next steps, the TEL team would like to address some of the points that the students raised as part of the feedback process, and create a communications plan to ensure this is being communicated to students at all relevant points of the academic year.
An all-Faculty stance should also be drawn up if/when a student submits their paper to the Similarity Checker instead of their module page and how this should be dealt with.
Leanne is the Digital Education Manager for the Faculty of Social Science and Public Policy (SSPP) at King’s College London. She is responsible for a wide range for digital education processes within the Faculty including instructional design, accessibility, training, innovation and developing new online programmes.
She has a background in publishing and eLearning, and is passionate about using technology to improve the learning experience and make it more accessible to all. She is interested in developing new ways of working, scaling projects and reusing content in new ways, and making online learning an enjoyable process for all.
Soshana is the Senior Postgraduate Programme Officer for the Department of Geography (SSPP) at King’s College London. She delivers the day-to-day administration of taught postgraduate programmes (Masters), offers comprehensive and authoritative advice and support for all staff and students in respect of programme regulations and curriculum choices, services the relevant boards and committees, and oversees the processing of Mitigating Circumstances requests.
She has a background in project coordination and is dedicated to improve the experience of both students and staff through the development and implementation of streamlined innovative solutions, including projects related to institutional processes, policymaking and technology-enhanced learning resources.
King’s has recently released a new KEATS feature that allows staff who manage a module area to create a set of temporary user accounts. These accounts only last a few days, but can be used to log into KEATS and explore module spaces exactly as a student would.
By creating temporary users you can:
Information on how to create temporary users is available in the KEATS Staff Documentation under Creating Temporary Users.
The “Temporary user creation” functionality is available for the Course Administration menu of your KEATS course and you can create up to 3 accounts at any one time, that will last a maximum of 14 days.
When you create the users they are automatically enrolled in the course created them in and the “Student” role. Once you have created a temporary user you can log in using the account details via keats.kcl.ac.uk/?redirect=0.