lists linked to multiple units
We would like the option of adding digitised content to reading lists associated with more than one unit. At present reading lists linked to multiple units do not support digitised content. We have several examples where a unit taught across several frameworks shares the same content.
Talis Aspire Digitised Content (TADC) and Talis Aspire Reading List (TARL) has now been improved to allow you to request a digitisation for a list that is attached to more than one course. This will help academics maintain one version of a list that is taught across many courses/modules. Reporting in TADC has been improved to capture all course details and student numbers separately for each module that is referenced in the request. The full supporting article can be seen here: https://support.talis.com/hc/en-us/articles/115005757765-Request-digitisations-One-list-multiple-courses
Any news on if this will change priority? This is a familiar issue for us, understandably the academics only want to manage the one list in these instances and is a source of frustration.
Now we're also moving towards CLA reporting to be managed via TADC we'd be keen to see this change incorporated in TADC worksflows.
Rob Challis commented
Agree with the comments below... here at UOBristol we have several lists associated with more than one unit, and the number is only going to grow as cross-disciplinary teaching is further encouraged by the university. As Steve says below, this stands to be a really barrier to getting academics engaged.
Steve Bowman commented
It would be great if this could be looked at and given a higher priority. We have many lists with more than one code, and not being able to make digitisation requests through a single list is annoying for academics, and a barrier to getting them engaged with the system. It means that any digitisations that they request are having to bypass TADC, which kind of makes it useless!
Rebecca Randall commented
It would be great if this could be looked at again and bumped up the jobs list a bit. We have a lot of lists with more than one code, and not being able to make digitisation requests through a single list is annoying for academics, and a barrier to getting them engaged with the system.
Louise Koch commented
This is creating a lot of work for us here as well, we have some lists that are attached to several units which means we have to have a list for each in order for the cover sheet to display the correct unit code.
Peta Hanley commented
Please do this as soon as possible as Deakin have any units in the cataegory as well and updating one rather than many lists is the ideal
David R Hart commented
We have recently learned that linking to a School as well as to a specific module falls into this trap too. As Talis currently offers us the option to link to Course, Module, Programme, Subject, Unit, Pathway, Field, Center, College, Department, Division, Faculty, Institute, Institution, School, and Level (phew!) it seems a pity that it can't distinguish between the different categories. This limits the usefulness of the browsing feature on the home page which theoretically allows the user to discover lists through a variety of approaches. Linking to School (or another appropriate departmental descriptor) would be a useful way to demonstrate academic adoption of the system.
Tania Durt commented
We noted as an issue that some Reading Lists were linked to more than one module as it was not clear how the request would only mention one single module and set of data when actually there is more than one module and group of students using the material. How do we make the process compliant with the CLA HE licence?
This is a great idea. We have numerous lecturers who run a campus-based and a distance learning based module using the same list, but attached to different course codes. It seems a shame to make them duplicate work when we're trying to persuade them how easy and time-saving it is to use the Talis systems.
We have the same issue at our institution. It drives the lecturers mad that they have to maintain numerous lists when one would do - and creates us a lot of extra work. Please vote for this!