Launch Event

Employability Resources
on the Web

Glasgow
3 February 2010

Sarah Currier, Project Consultant

 Briefintroduction to SHEEN Sharing.
 Launch: let‟s look at our new site in detail.
 Review: Web 2.0, Resource Sharing and
Communities of Practice.
 The ECN as a CoP: Characteristics,
Benchmarking, Requirements.
 What SHEEN Sharing Did.
 Challenges and Overcoming Them.
 How SHEEN Sharing Did.
 Proposed by the SHEEN Employability
Coordinators‟ Network (ECN) in direct
response to an urgent internal need.
 Funded by the Scottish Funding Council.
 Administered by the Higher Education
Academy.
 Overseen by the Scottish Higher Education
Employability Network (SHEEN) Steering
Group.
 For the benefit of the ECN and their
immediate stakeholders.
Proposed project outcomes:
 Increased ease of sharing of resources and practice
amongst the ECN, leading to more effective use of
resources, better support for their professional
development, and enhancement of their community
of practice.
 Support for discovery and dissemination of relevant
employability resources to stakeholders outwith the
ECN, e.g. academics, staff developers, student
support departments, national services, funders, etc.
 Dissemination of the project findings for the benefit
of the wider education community, and the FE and
HE funding bodies across the UK.
 Project timescale: Jan – Sep 2009; extended to
February 2010.
 Project lead: Cherie Woolmer, Employability
Coordinator, University of Strathclyde (voluntary)
 Project consultant, 2.5 days / week for 9 months:
Sarah Currier (extended for 4 months ).
 Project Development Group: enthusiasts in the
Employability Coordinators‟ Network (voluntary).
 Admin and advisory support from HEA.
 Travel and events budget.
 No technology budget.
 Project timescale: Jan – Sep 2009; extended to
February 2010.
 Project lead: Cherie Woolmer, Employability
Coordinator, University of Strathclyde (voluntary)
 Project consultant, 2.5 days / week for 9 months:
Sarah Currier (extended for 4 months ).
 Project Development Group: enthusiasts in the
Employability Coordinators‟ Network (voluntary).
 Admin and advisory support from HEA.
 Travel and events budget.
 No technology budget.
 The ECN‟s original idea was that someone should build
them with a Website, perhaps powered by a repository,
and populate it.

 Given the project‟s resourcing, timescale and intended

outcomes, they were advised by JISC CETIS to look at
Web2.0 / social media resource sharing instead.

 The HEA was developing the EvidenceNet repository

as a more formal home for resources that required this
further down the line. But there was no guarantee this
would be ready in time.
Jan – Mar 2009: Exploratory phase
 Initial planning meeting of Development Group.
 4 introductory workshops held across Scotland.
 Requirements / benchmarking survey.
 Literature review.
Apr – Jul 2009: Tools trials phase
 Planning meeting with Development Group.
 Decided to trial Diigo & Netvibes: introduced them to
Coordinators at ECN Meeting.
 3 Diigo Training Days held across Scotland.
Aug – Sep 2009: Evaluation phase
 Planning webinar with Development Group.
 Follow-up / evaluation survey.
 In-depth interview with 2 Coordinators.
 Evaluation Event.
Oct 2009 – Feb 2010: Consolidation / Completion
 Consolidation and embedding of project work as ECN enters new
academic year.
 Follow-up Diigo trainings (2) to further embed sharing.
 Workshops (2 F2F and 1 online) to finalise Netvibes page.
 Development of video resources for future use of ECN after
funded period ends.
 Dissemination: Feb 2010.
Employability Resources for Higher
Education in Scotland

http://www.netvibes.com/employability
These are freely available for anyone to
watch in the Welcome Tab of the site:
http://www.netvibes.com/employability#Welcome

We‟ll now watch the 5 x 5 minute videos ...

 The Employability Co-ordinators‟ Network
and their journey as a community of practice
 Experimental -- Developmental -- Iterative
 Flexible: change track quickly if something isn‟t working.
 Must have ownership and involvement of ECN to succeed.
 Safe communication spaces + open dissemination spaces.
 Must not be driven by traditional project reporting outputs.
 CoP = sharing of knowledge, experience and peer teaching
within community.
 CoP = room for mistakes, learning from trial and error,
reporting what doesn‟t work as well as what does,
supporting each other.
 Piloting use of freely available Web tools.

Validated 100% by Project Review!

 Gavin & Jessica reflect on how SHEEN
Sharing has changed their thinking and
working practices. Jessica shares how it
has helped her work through her
„technophobia‟ and assisted with her
work at Heriot-Watt.

Video clip is 6:16 minutes long: not

publicly available but shown at event.
Web 2.0 and SHEEN Sharing
... it‟s a catch-all, un-defined term that
refers to stuff on the Web that allows
users to create and share their own
content globally, and within their own
self-organised communities ...

... increasingly referred to also as “social

media” ...
See handout, which was created for SHEEN
Sharing‟s initial introductory meetings ...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11999782/SHEEN-Web20-Intro-Presentation-Handout-290109
 Gavin & Jessica reflect on new
confidence, new understanding, & the joy
of the read/write Web. How can we
specifically use new Web tools in our
work?

Video clip is 1:07 minutes long: not publicly

available but shown at event.
The Employability Agenda as a Driver
The recent report of an independent Committee of Inquiry into
the impact on higher education of students‟ widespread use
of Web 2.0 technologies (entitled ‘Higher Education in a Web
2.0 World’) noted:

“[...] the dispositions developed through engagement

with Web 2.0 technologies – to communicate,
participate, network, share etc – overlap with what
are viewed both as significant 21st century learning
skills and 21st century employability skills.”

Hughes, A. (2009)
Communities of Practice and Resource Sharing
“Communities of practice are formed by people who
engage in a process of collective learning in a
shared domain of human endeavor: a tribe learning
to survive, a band of artists seeking new forms of
expression, a group of engineers working on similar
problems, a clique of pupils defining their identity in
the school, a network of surgeons exploring novel
techniques, a gathering of first-time managers
helping each other cope.”

Etienne Wenger
http://www.ewenger.com/theory/
CoPs and resource sharing in UK HE:
• PROWE, CD-LOR, SPIRE (JISC DRP 2005-2007)
• JISC Emerge, Pathfinder DMU Learning Exchanges
• Interviewed key people.

“[...] the pedagogical, social, and organisational

aspects of these communities have not been at the
forefront in the design and development [...].
Research has consistently demonstrated that the
most substantial barriers in uptake of technology
are rooted in these factors”
Margaryan, Milligan and Douglas, 2007. CD-LOR Project
The question was: What have you learned
or gained from the project? Gavin
reflects on the Communities of Practice
aspect of SHEEN Sharing. Jessica reflects
on learning about new, useful, timesaving
tools.
Video clip is 1:16 minutes long: not
publicly available but shown at event.
Characteristics, Priorities, Experience, Confidence Levels
 National, across all Scotland‟s HE institutions.
 Geographically distributed, with some
members, particularly in the north of Scotland,
less able to attend centrally based meetings.
 Mostly female (76% female / 24% male).

 A mix of part-time and full-time (59% full-time /

41% part-time) ...
A mix of professional backgrounds:
• Lecturers;
• Researchers;
• Careers advisers;
• Policy developers and implementers;
• Staff developers;
• Educational developers;
• Librarians;
... ?
A mix of institutional situations, in terms of:
1. the department they are based in:
 59% educational/staff development;
 41% careers service;
 some co-located in different departments;
2. the emphasis required by their institution:
 working at a policy level;
 working on curriculum and course development;
 working directly with academics and students.
3. university type, from red brick to the
ancients, including the Open University and
the federated UHI Millennium Institute.
 Temporary: funding for their work will
not continue beyond the next couple of
years (although some have permanent
posts).
 A small number of institutions did not
employ designated “employability
coordinators”, but most did.
 There is significant time pressure on many
ECN members;
 There are a range of professional and
institutional cultures, priorities and
communication styles coming to bear on
their ability to participate;
 There are institutional cultures with different
levels of support for use of technology;
 There is a sense that the work accomplished
must not be lost after the end of the ECN‟s
funded tenure in their roles.
 There is significant time pressure on many
ECN members;
 There are a range of professional and
institutional cultures, priorities and
communication styles coming to bear on
their ability to participate;
 There are institutional cultures with different
levels of support for use of technology;
 There is a sense that the work accomplished
must not be lost after the end of the ECN‟s
funded tenure in their roles.
 Gavin & Jessica reflect on how SHEEN
Sharing has strengthened the ECN as a
Community of Practice, bringing
everyone together, working for the same
aim, moving towards an ongoing, fluid
way of operating and strengthening
bonds.
Video clip is 2:02 minutes long: not publicly
available but shown at event.
 Communication:
• Mutual support;
• Sharing experience, practice and learning.
 Resource sharing, comprising:
• Discovery, sharing, recommending and rating;
• Sharing experiences of use of resources;
• Targeted resource dissemination to all
stakeholders.
 One-stop shop for employability for:
• New employees coming in;
• Employer stakeholders;
• Academics;
• Students ... And more?
 Communicating less frequently than they‟d like:
• time constraints;
• issues of information overload;
• all forms of communication tend to occur monthly or less.
 Using bookmarking, Google search and email.
 Some experience with social media and educational
tech: not all positive.
 Medium/low confidence in efficiency/effectiveness
at resource discovery, sharing, dissemination.
 Strong support for:
• sharing opinions, practice tips and ideas around resources with
ECN colleagues and other stakeholders,
• improving their own efficiency and effectiveness in sharing
resources.
Web 2.0 tool types of particular interest to this project were not
used by many participants at the start:
 Newsfeeds = 29%
• The lynchpin of Web 2.0; enable time saving in keeping up-to-
date with activities and resources; interoperate with all tools.
 Social bookmarking sites (e.g. Delicious, Diigo) = 18%
• Key component for communities sharing resources over the
Web; for individuals finding, discussing & recommending
relevant resources.
 Group web spaces (e.g. Ning, Google Groups) = 35%
• Offer private discussion and activity space requested by ECN
members since the ECN JISCmail list started.

This indicated a clear training and support need to be

addressed by the project.
The Story of SHEEN Sharing
 We had 4 introductory meetings ...
 With a handout.
 We started a project blog, to:
• Be a central dissemination and discussion point.
• Introduce people to the idea of using RSS feeds.
• Provide a place to demonstrate different tools.
 Homework was for everyone to:
• Set up their own newsfeed reader.
• Subscribe to the project blog newsfeed.
 We set up weekly drop-in support webinars
using the OU‟s FlashMeeting tool.
Jessica talks about how Google Reader
and finding out about newsfeeds has
changed her life. Gavin didn't do the
homework: re newsfeeds- local IT
support has been a barrier for him.

Video clip is 2:35 minutes long: not publicly

available but shown at event.
 Anyone who wanted to try posting was given an account:
• This was experimental: no clear purpose other than “having a go”;
• Some disappointment over lack of engagement early on!
 Others tried out commenting on the blog.
 The blog was used to demonstrate how RSS feeds could be
pulled in from other tools and displayed in a single site:
• A couple of early bookmarking feeds from Delicious were set up: one
for the project literature review and one for anyone tagging sites of
interest with “sheensharing”
• We started storing our public project documents on Scribd, and used
a feed to put these up on the blog
• We started a Twitter account - @sheensharing – and put a feed from
this into the blog
 The Development Group agreed that we should have project
theme groups to trial different tools for different purposes:
each group got its own blog “page”.
 We started by asking folk to join Delicious
and bookmark their favourite employability
sites using the tag “sheensharing”.
 I also tagged everything I came across in
the literature review as
“sheensharing_web2”.
 This introduced people to the idea of web-
based bookmarking, tagging and creating
feeds to share resources.
 The first 4 months were uncomfortable for people:
• “Where‟s our nice repository?”;
• Ambiguity about purpose of blog was difficult;
• Many didn‟t even bother with setting up a feed reader;
• We had regular Flashmeetings but there were technical
problems at a few institutions - Flashmeeting has virtually no
tech support;
 We made a few early, passionate, converts who have
become the CoP‟s expert users;
 I probably wouldn‟t do it much differently knowing
what I know now!
• Threshold concepts are key to personal development and
learning – and they are troublesome and scary!
• Would use the CoP more right from the start to tell their own
success stories.
 TheDevelopment Group decided the
formal trials phase should focus on:
• Sharing resources (and experiences, opinions,
recommendations);
• Public and private space to discuss them;
• Having a place to disseminate in a targeted way
for the sake of other stakeholders.
 During the project review, an interview
with George Roberts of the JISC Emerge
project alerted us to Diigo and Netvibes.
Diigo:
1. Research: Annotate, Archive, Organise:
http://vimeo.com/6747389
2. Sharing: Build a Personal Learning Network:
http://vimeo.com/6747537
3. Collaborate: Create a Group Knowledge Repository:
http://vimeo.com/6747628

Netvibes Examples:
http://slides.diigo.com/list/morageyrie/sheen-sharing-examples

Our Netvibes Site:

http://www.netvibes.com/Employability
 About 85% of the ECN attended introductory /
requirements gathering meetings.
 About 65% of the ECN attended the Diigo
training workshops signed up to Diigo & have
their existing bookmarks in their Diigo accounts.
 Nearly 100% are members of the public &
private Diigo groups, and half have signed up for
regular alerts.
 About 50% of the ECN did the follow-up Diigo
trainings in December.
 Since then the number actively contributing
resources has gone up from 33% to over 50%.
 Prema from the University of Abertay
reflects on usefulness of Diigo. She has
evangelised its use to other people at her
university!

Gopalakrishnan Premalatha (Prema): Employability

Project Officer, Career Development Centre, University of
Abertay Dundee
Audio clip is 1:13 minutes long: not publicly
available but played at event.
 Gavin & Jessica on the wonder of Diigo.
Sharing resources (SHEEN Sharing‟s
original remit); accessing your resources
wherever you are; supports efficiency.
How can we get more people to share
their bookmarks there?

Video clip is 3:42 minutes long: not

publicly available but was shown at
event.
 Jessica remembers specific technical
barriers at her institution: needing IT
support to install most tools at work (but
more reflections on how her life has been
revolutionised). Gavin reflects on
barriers looking forward: encouraging
engagement.

Video clip is 5:52 minutes long: not publicly

available but was shown at event.
JISC Emerge (2009) found that “[t]he effective
use of Web2.0 applications depends
essentially on human networks. This raises
questions of inclusion, exclusion and
identity”.
We‟ve had to stay very aware of the different
levels of engagement/confidence and
utilise the CoP and peer stories to help
people along.
 People feel they don‟t have time to
engage because they perceive a difficult
learning curve ahead;
 They understand intellectually when
experienced CoP members say: “it saves
time and enhances work”;
 But until they put an initial bit of time in to
learn, they don‟t get the personal
experience that validates that.
Results of the Benchmarking Survey in February 2009 compared
to the Evaluation Survey in September 2009.
 Confidence in accessing employability resources efficiently?
60

50

40

% of ECN 30
Survey 1
Survey 2
20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

1 = not very confident ; 5 = extremely confident

 Confidence in accessing employability resources
effectively?
50

45

40

35

30

% of ECN 25
Survey 1
20 Survey 2
15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

1 = not very confident ; 5 = extremely confident

 Confidence in sharing resources with ECN efficiently
50

45

40

35

30

% of ECN 25
Survey 1
20 Survey 2

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

1 = not very confident ; 5 = extremely confident

 Confidence in sharing resources with ECN effectively
60

50

40

% of ECN 30
Survey 1
Survey 2
20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

1 = not very confident ; 5 = extremely confident

 Confidence in finding resources again 1 year from now
50

45

40

35

30

% of ECN 25
Survey 1
20 Survey 2

15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

1 = not very confident ; 5 = extremely confident

 Confidence in disseminating resources outwith ECN
effectively
90

80

70

60

50

% of ECN Survey 1
40
Survey 2
30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

1 = not very confident ; 5 = extremely confident

 Confidence in disseminating resources outwith ECN
effectively
90

80 NB: This is the only question that didn‟t indicate

increased confidence levels in September 2009.
70 We didn‟t have the Netvibes site then and
people had difficulty visualising it until we
60 started working on it. We hope that this
question, if asked now, would show increased
50 confidence levels similar to the previous slides!
% of ECN Survey 1
40
Survey 2
30

20

10

0
1 2 3 4 5

1 = not very confident ; 5 = extremely confident

 Pam Andrew at St Andrews University is using Diigo‟s
Webslides feature to make her student experience wiki
pages more accessible:
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/careers/wiki/Work_experience
 We supported the SHEEN Placements Project in thinking
about dissemination requirements: they used a project blog
and Twitter, plus individual student blogs for student
reflections.
 We met with the EvidenceNet team in York to talk about
mutual affordances.
 We discussed requirements with the SHEEN International
PDP Project.
 Gavin McCabe and Ruth Donnelly have begun using Diigo
internally at Edinburgh University Careers Service
 Cherie Woolmer has run an initial development session with
Strathclyde‟s Careers Service using SHEEN Sharing
resources.
 Fiona Boyle from Queen Margaret University
reflects on her own learning curve and that of
the ECN. She started off sceptical and became
a core supporter of the project, utilising Web
2.0 in her own SHEEN project on voluntary
sector placements.

Fiona Boyle: Employability Coordinator,

Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh

Audio clip is 1:13 minutes long: not publicly

available but played at event.
Currier, S. (2009) SHEEN Sharing Benchmarking and Final Requirements Report. Final
Public Draft. Higher Education Academy. Available:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16529191/SHEEN-Sharing-Benchmarking-and-
Requirements-Report-Final-Public-Draft

Currier, S. (2009) SHEEN Sharing Review. Final Public Draft. Higher Education
Academy. Available: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16529201/SHEEN-Sharing-
Review-Report-Final-Public-Draft

Hughes, A. (2009) Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World: Report of an independent

Committee of Inquiry into the impact on higher education of students’ widespread
use of Web 2.0 technologies. JISC. Available:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/heweb2.aspx

JISC Emerge (2009) JISC Emerge: A User-Centred Social Learning Media Hub:
Supporting the Users and Innovation R&D Community Network. JISC. Available:
http://reports.jiscemerge.org.uk/Publications/

Margaryan, A., Milligan, C. And Douglas, P. (2007) CD-LOR Deliverable 9: Structured

Guidelines for Setting up Learning Object Repositories. Available:
http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/cd-lor/documents/CD-
LOR_Structured_Guidelines_v1p0_000.pdf
Image on 1st slide by ycc2106:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ycc2106/103383461/ available under Creative Commons:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/deed.en_GB

Slides by Sarah Currier, Consultant, SHEEN Sharing Project

http://www.sarahcurrier.com/
sarah.currier@gmail.com

Interviewees:
Gavin McCabe, University of Edinburgh Careers Service.
Jessica Henderson, Heriot-Watt University Educational Development Unit.

Audio clips speakers:

Cherie Woolmer, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow
Gopalakrishnan Premalatha, University of Abertay, Dundee
Fiona Boyle, Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh

Slides © 2010 Higher Education Academy.