Project Document Cover Sheet

Transcription

Project Acronym: CPD4HE
Version: 1
Contact: jane.hughes@ucl.ac.uk
Date: 30.09.2010
Project Document Cover Sheet
Project Information
Project Acronym
CPD4HE
Project Title
CPD4HE: Open Resources on HE Teaching and Learning
Start Date
September 2010
Lead Institution
UCL
Project Director
Jane Hughes
Project Manager &
contact details
Jane Hughes (jane.hughes@ucl.ac.uk) – Project Manager;
Man Yang (m.yang@ucl.ac.uk) - Project Officer
Partner Institutions
N/A
Project Web URL
www.ucl.ac.uk/cpd4he/
Programme Name (and
number)
OER OMAC - OM06
Programme Manager
Jo Masterson
End Date
31 August 2011
Document Name
Document Title
Project Plan
Reporting Period
N/A
Author(s) & project role
Jane Hughes, Project Director
Date
1 October 2010
URL
http:://www.ucl.ac.uk/calt/cpd4he/
Access
√ Project and Academy/JISC internal
Filename
OER2projectplanCPD4HE.doc
√ General dissemination
Document History
Version
2
Date
1 November 2010
Page 1 of 27
Document title: Academy/JISC Project Plan
Last updated: August 2010
Comments
Amended in response to feedback on draft
Version: 1
Contact:jane.hughes@ucl.ac.uk
Date:30 September 2010
The Academy/JISC Project Plan
Overview of Project
1. Background
The project addresses the need to support flexible provision for the professional development of those
who teach in higher education (HE). Higher education careers are increasingly varied, perhaps
especially with regard to teaching roles and responsibilities. A wide variety of staff teach and/or
support learning, including research staff, teaching fellows, postgraduates, lecturers and senior
academics. “Support” staff such as learning technologists may also interact directly with students.
Many people teach part-time in higher education and have professional roles elsewhere. The different
groups are likely to have different professional development needs.
Two fairly recent trends also have implications for HE teachers’ professional development. Firstly, the
growing number of multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary programmes may challenge disciplinary
assumptions about learning and also about the relationship between research and teaching.
Secondly, learning technologies are increasingly embedded in learning and teaching; blended
learning is becoming the norm and more campus-based teachers are exploring the possibilities of
distance learning. Both of these trends mean that learning resources are increasingly developed and
used by teams rather than around the research interests of individual academics.
Our own institution illustrates these developments: the new Institutional Learning and Teaching
Strategy (ILTS) states that all staff, including researchers, must teach; all courses are required to use
blended learning to some extent; an ambitious interdisciplinary BA/BSc programme is being
developed.
We need to meet the professional development needs of new HE teachers, more senior academics
and those who support teaching and learning. In doing so, we must take account of disciplinary and
institutional contexts (including FE) and of the wide range of learning scenarios in which practitioners
are engaged. HE teachers may need to participate in an ongoing taught programme, choose
individual workshops, find and reflect on evidence from practice and scholarship. Flexibility in terms of
time, place and pace of study are also vital. The development of the Professional Standards
Framework (PSF) is a huge help in the effort to enhance teaching and learning but it challenges
institutions to develop flexible ways to support staff development within the Framework.
The project benefits from institutional interest in and support for OER and builds on experience gained
in previous OER projects. The ILTS states the intention to raise the external profile of UCL’s teaching
to match its reputation for research. iTunesU and YouTube are already being used to release UCL
learning resources and other material and there have been two recent UCL OER projects, the VERB
(Virtual Educational Resource for the Biosciences) project and the Dutch History project. In the last
year the use of Open Educational Resources has been promoted through support activities and in
workshops for academic staff and graduate students. But there is still work to be done to effect the
kind of cultural change needed to make sharing and re-use of learning resources routine. We believe
this is the case across the sector.
Page 2 of 27
Version: 1
2. Aims and Objectives
Aims
To release open educational resources equivalent to 300 study hours, with a strong but not
exclusive focus on the priority areas, Digital and Information Literacies and Discipline-Specific
Teaching and Learning.
To evaluate the resources, addressing their use in a variety of contexts
To develop and release guidance materials for potential users of the resources
To capture and disseminate the experiences of those who have used the resources
To conduct dissemination activities around the release of the resources
3. Overall Approach
These are some of the questions we expect to engage with in order to carry out this work:
Who will use the resources? How will the materials be used? How can we encourage
potential users to seek out and reuse them? What are the inhibitors and barriers?
What are the best ways to work with teachers to develop and release their learning materials
as open resources?
How will we negotiate IPR agreements for the project? How can licensing accommodate third
party content and institutional contributors?
How can we maximise discoverability? What factors (eg rich metadata? choice of repository?)
influence the discoverability of open educational resources?
What are the most appropriate digital formats for the varied materials we are releasing?
The issue of discoverability has led to a change of project name. The original, OpenPSF, was used as
the working title for the proposal but we felt that “PSF” would only be meaningful to those who had
engaged directly with the framework, whereas “CPD” is more widely understood. We still believe the
subheading, “Open Resources on HE Teaching and Learning” is essential and this will feature on all
documentation.
Given the level of funding and the required timescale, we will build on our substantial core of existing
resources rather than creating entirely new ones. At UCL, an HEA-accredited (PGCLTHE)
programme, embedded in our MA Education and supplemented by a range of short courses and
workshops, represents a flexible set of professional development options and embodies the PSF core
values. We will draw on this package for the resources we release and particularly on two modules of
our PGCLTHE, with additional material from Learning Technologies modules in the MA Education
programme and workshops for staff and graduate teaching assistants. Key features of the materials
are:
Focus on learning and the student
Classroom-based activities and “virtual alternatives” with shared learning outcomes
Provision for all PSF levels and kinds of teaching and support for learning
Disciplinarity addressed both explicitly and through experiential learning
Digital literacies and e-learning addressed both explicitly and through experiential learning
Consideration of summative and formative assessment embedded in the learning process
The individual’s experience of teaching viewed as a resource central to learning
The HE teacher viewed as part of a community; interaction with this community is part of
learning.
It would be fair to say that virtually all these learning resources demand reflection on the nature of
learning and teaching in a participant’s discipline and offer an opportunity to explore the affordances
of digital technologies to enhance learning, teaching and assessment. Activities, readings and
resource materials consider digital literacies both as an essential part of teaching in the discipline and
in relation to student learning and the student experience. They also provide HE teachers with a taste
of the student experience of learning technologies, on which to reflect. The resources we release will
adopt the same approach and offer the same opportunities.
Page 3 of 27
Version: 1
We will release learning resources equivalent to at least 30 credits. The notion of 30 credits has
helped us to conceptualise the resources and plan the work but we will not present the material as a
complete 30-credit course; we would regard doing so as a possible barrier to repurposing. The
resources could, however, be combined to provide a single coherent programme. Individual resources
might also contribute to a range of different accredited courses or professional development schemes.
These materials were developed collaboratively and have already been through several cycles of
evaluation in use. We will organise the materials for release into ten “Resource Units”, each
equivalent to about 30 study hours. Through our initial project team meetings, we have provisionally
identified the ten headings under which the released resources will be grouped. These are:
1. Designing and planning a teaching session
2. Assessment and feedback to students
3. Academic literacies
4. Learning, Teaching and Technologies
5. Relationships between teaching and research
6. Quality
7. Values in Higher Education
8. Internationalising HE
9. Skills in Higher Education
10. Designing the curriculum
We already have more than enough resources but we do anticipate adding some new materials as
well as developing the existing ones. We intend to use new opportunities in the institution for digital
recording and automatic capture of teaching sessions in order to add short video clips. We will also
increase the number of learning tasks that exploit digital media for documenting and reflecting on
practice.
Many of the resources are currently in moodle “book” form. We will build on the experience of the
VERB project when considering the format for releasing these. We must enable the materials to be reused and re-configured with a fine degree of granularity, so that a single text, digital recording or
activity, in an open format, can be extracted.
We will provide guidance on potential pathways and configurations. We will also capture and include
in the release knowledge and experiences of those who have developed and used the resources, in
the form of audio commentaries from tutors and course participants, with transcripts.
We will engage with stakeholders throughout the project, using a variety of methods. There are
several stakeholders who are crucially influential but we consider our primary target audience to be
those responsible for accredited provision in institutions. Members of the project steering group hold
such responsibilities and they also work in contrasting institutional contexts. A member of the project
team, Ulrich Tiedau, will convene a multidisciplinary academic consultation group to give feedback on
the resources. This part of the project work will include running two focus groups and encouraging
group members to consider the relevance of the resources in their disciplines. The group will meet in
December to consider the first two resource units completed, and in March to consider the next four.
We will report on the process and outcomes.
A steering group of stakeholder representatives will be formed early in the project and will advise on
project evaluation and dissemination. Early and continuing work with stakeholders will also consider
where, in addition to JORUMOPEN, to place the resources.
Page 4 of 27
Version: 1
We will make use of the programme and establish links with other projects where possible. We have
already made contact with the DELILA project, managed by Dr. Jane Secker and begun to consider
ways in which we can collaborate. We welcome the support for such pairings from the Evaluation and
Synthesis group.
Institutional embedding
The project will advance important UCL teaching and learning goals and we will exploit this by putting
its work on the agenda of committees and working groups on which the team members serve. In
addition to the work of named team members, we are able to draw on expertise from the UCL Library,
Media Services, Learning Technology Support Service to support our day-to-day work, in which the
project is embedded.
Critical success factors
Agreement is reached internally on resources to be released
Stakeholder engagement and dissemination activities achieve their aims
Resources are suitable (or can be adapted) for release as OER
We are able to negotiate licensing agreements
We are able to manage the conversion process
Quality management processes are adequate
Resources are released in repositories appropriate to potential users
4. Project Outputs
Ten “resource units” including support for both classroom-based and virtual learning
Audio commentaries with transcripts (user and developer experiences)
Written guidance about how the activities might be used in different contexts
Blog posts and progress reports
Reports, papers and other publications
5. Project Outcomes
Outcome
Richer understanding of how OER
materials can be used in new contexts,
including different disciplines
More flexible and varied accredited CPD
provision for teaching staff
More sharing of resources amongst those
who design accreditation schemes
Possible Impact
The work of OER, learning technology and educational
development communities informed by this and good
practice in OER re-use spreads
More teaching staff participate in accreditation
schemes, leading to a better and more consistent
experience for students
Cascade effect raises awareness of OER use amongst
staff participating in accreditation schemes
6. Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder
Vice provost Academic & International
(Home institution)
Page 5 of 27
Interest / stake
Drives institutional teaching &
learning strategy; expects
project to support this.
Importance
High
Version: 1
HE staff with teaching responsibilities
(Internal and external)
Learners in HE
Educational developers and others responsible
for accredited provision
The original creators of the resources
Other members of our institution
Senior managers in institutions, home and
external: our own managers, those managing
quality, innovation and other aspects of learning
& teaching
Subject Centres
HEA/JISC
HEFCE
Project team members
Need support to develop and
enhance their teaching;
expect it to be relevant to their
disciplines
The student learning
experience is of central
concern to teachers; student
feedback on their experience
is a key quality indicator for
institutions.
Our primary user group.
Knowledgeable; potentially
both appreciative and critical
of resources
Have invested time and effort
into creating resources and
may want some control over
their future use.
Aware of external reputation.
Expect institution to achieve
high standards
If aware of useful resources,
may influence uptake.
Need to know resources given
to the project are providing
value
May contribute disciplinerelated perspective and
advice to the project; can
increase project impact
through work with
practitioners in the disciplines
Provide programme structure
and vision, information,
advice, networking
opportunities
Expect regular, reporting and
engagement with the
programme
Fund the OER programme;
expect visible impact
Vital project resource; work
together to achieve project
aims
High
High
High
High
Medium
High
High
High
High
High
7. Risk Analysis
Risk
Staffing:
Loss of project leadership
Probability
(1-5)
Severity
(1-5)
Score
(P x S)
2
5
10
Page 6 of 27
Action to Prevent/Manage Risk
Information will always be shared
across the team to enable
continuity. Highly experienced
staff, RD or HS would be able to
sustain the project.
Version: 1
Loss of resource developers
2
4
8
Loss of other team members
2
5
10
Organisational
Failure to maintain a
committed, productive team
1
5
5
Lack of co-operation from an
original developer of
materials
3
2
6
Lack of enthusiasm from
those evaluating the
resources
3
4
12
Large-scale organisational
change affecting project
team members
3
4
12
Page 7 of 27
Our project team is experienced
and versatile. We would be able to
reallocate development work in the
event of staff movement
They have specific expertise which
could be difficult to replace. Keep
their home departments informed to
encourage support for the project
and ability to provide a substitute.
Dialogue with programme manager
in the event.
Members of the project team have
worked successfully together for
several years. We will foster
enthusiasm and cohesion by
meeting regularly to share and
discuss progress. Individual
professional goals will be
respected.
Some reluctance is likely but the
culture within the core teaching
team is to share resources. With
such a large bank of materials and
an experienced development team
we are confident we would be able
to substitute materials in such a
case.
Buy-in from potential users is
important. We will bring them in at
the start and involve them in the
development of the resources as
much as possible.
There are agreed institutional
change and transition procedures
to manage such processes.
Version: 1
Technical
Accessibility
1
5
5
Interoperability
1
5
5
Fitness for purpose
1
5
5
3
2
9
Resources will always be released
in more than one repository.
3
4
12
Reaching agreements about IPR
will be challenging but we will
embark on this work immediately.
IPR policy at UCL is favourable in
that it resides with the author for all
teaching materials. We have a
specialist (JHe) in the team.
External suppliers
Failure of system hosting
released resources
Legal
Difficulties in reaching
agreement about IPR.
.
Failure to adhere to accessibility
guidelines would be a serious risk
but the team is aware, has
specialist knowledge and has built
checks on this into the development
process.
Failure to adhere to requirements
on formats and standards would be
a serious risk but the team is
aware, has specialist knowledge
and has built checks on this into the
development process.
It would be a very serious threat to
the project if the released resources
were not fit for purpose
pedagogically, in terms of the UK
PSF or with regard to re-use or repurposing. The quality plan is
intended to minimise such a risk.
8. Standards
The information given at the first programme meeting was extremely helpful. We will not deviate from
the Academy/JISC recommended standards outlined there and will follow all guidelines relevant to the
project and programme. We build on phase one by using the CORRE Framework (developed as part
of the JISC OER Phase 1 OTTER project at the University of Leicester):
http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond-distance-research-alliance /projects /otter/about-oers/Correweb.pdf and we have also drawn on the work of the Low Countries History Phase 1 project in
considering standards. We will follow JISC TechDis recommendations with regard to accessibility
and usability. Resource descriptions will conform to both the programme minimum requirement of:
UKOER+CPD4HE tag, Title, Author, Date, URL, File format and size and, in addition the
recommended Language, Subject classification(s), Keywords, Comments and Free text description.
Name of standard or
specification
RSS/Atom
Version
Notes
For publication
Jorum Open
metadata standards
Dublin Core
http://www.jorum.ac.uk/docs/pdf/JorumOpenapplicationprofile.pdf
Open document
format (.odt); rich text
format (.rtf). If
appropriate, portable
For text
Page 8 of 27
For metadata
Version: 1
document format
(.pdf)
PNG, JPEG
MP3
For images
For audio
MPEG4
For video
9. Technical Development
Although the project is not developing any new system, we will follow an iterative development cycle
in preparing our resources for release. We will use established methods for capturing user
requirements and carry out three cycles of specification, development, release and evaluation,
corresponding to release of the resources in three phases.
10. Intellectual Property Rights
The resources for the project will be released under Creative Commons licenses (wherever possible
CC Attribution-ShareAlike). The intention is to move when possible to Creative Commons 3.0, due for
release in early 2011. As shown in the workpackages, a significant part of the project work is to
negotiate IPR and especially to deal with licensing of any third party content. As stated in Section 3,
we have established a link with the OMAC project, DELILA, and intend to share experience and
knowledge in this area.
Project Resources
11. Project Partners
N/A
12. Project Management
Responsibilities and decision-making
The small size of the project means some roles are combined. Jane Hughes (JH) has a project
director as well as project manager role and Man Yang (MY) will take on some project management
responsibilities. Jane Hughes will manage the project and have overall responsibility for evaluation,
stakeholder engagement and liaison with the Programme staff. Day-to-day co-ordination will be
undertaken by the project officer, Man Yang. Individual team members will take the lead on particular
workpackages. Although the division of responsibilities has been guided by individuals' particular
strengths, there is sufficient overlap of skills in the team to allow reconfiguring to cover unforeseen
problems and thus minimise risk (see Risk Analysis). The full project team (JH, MY, RD, HS, JHe, UT,
CY) will meet monthly. A project steering group will act as a critical sounding board, will meet three
times during the life of the project and will be asked to review the project plan, interim and final project
reports. Steering Group members are stakeholder representatives with knowledge of the professional
development needs of teachers in post-compulsory education. This is a single-institution project and
three members of the project team work on UK PSF provision and accreditation in our own institution.
The Steering Group brings a broader perspective, with a range of institutions represented. In addition
to the Project Director and UCL digital literacies expert, Dr. Colleen McKenna, members include
Jannie Roed, Principal Lecturer at Thames Valley University and responsible for the Postgraduate
Certificate Programme there and Anna Douglas, Deputy Director of City & Islington Sixth College,
who also has institutional CPD responsibilities.
Communication
All team members have experience of teaching, supporting learning and developing learning
resources, but with different perspectives and immediate working contexts. We view diversity as a
strength but acknowledge the effort needed to achieve shared understanding and the potential cost of
failure to do so. We will therefore prioritise face-to-face meetings in the early stages of the project and
supplement these with frequent online interaction throughout. We routinely use online collaboration
Page 9 of 27
Version: 1
tools to support our work and will continue to do so, sharing materials and information and
collaborating on documents via moodle, the institutional wiki, GoogleDocs and other tools as needed.
We also place high value on communication with the Academy and JISC and will ensure that the
benefits of this are disseminated throughout the team.
Relationship with OER programme staff
Team members have in the past benefited from their participation in Academy/JISC programme
meetings and HEA events. As we have done in previous projects, we will make use of JISC resources
and communication channels and maintain a dialogue with programme and project staff. Services
which we anticipate will be particularly useful include Academy Subject Centres, JISC Infonet and
JISC Legal, Web2Rights, CETIS.
Project team
The project team consists of six people, shown with contact details and a summary of their
contribution, in the table below. This is followed by brief biographies.
We are confident that the team has the skills and experience to complete the project successfully and
sufficient overlap of expertise and experience to minimise risks associated with loss of staff, at any
point during the project (see Risk Analysis). Three team members (JH, CY, UT) have worked on
JISC/Academy programmes previously. We have identified some training needs (advanced training in
the institutional content management system and briefing on licensing and legal issues for the Project
Officer). These will be provided in-house as part of institutional CPD.
Team member
Project Director/manager:
Jane Hughes (JH)
jane.hughes@ucl.ac.uk
10% FTE spent on
project management
Experience/expertise
Project management and project work;
HE teaching; creating learning
resources; learning technologies;
literacies and online communication.
Project Officer:
Man Yang (MY)
m.yang@ucl.ac.uk
10% FTE
Resource Developer;
Holly Smith (HS)
holly.smith@ucl.ac.uk
Project support and development; web
development, web accessibility;
learning technologies.
HE teaching and learning, HE teacher
professional development
Contribution to Work
Steer project; liaise with steering
group and Academy. Manage
project team; reporting; final
responsibility for evaluation;
dissemination. In teaching role, will
develop and trial resources.
Develop project website; coordinate day-to-day activity and
reporting; provide technical support
for resource developers.
Developing resources for release
and evaluating them.
Resource Developer:
Rosalind Duhs (RD)
r.duhs@ucl.ac.uk
Writing virtual learning resources,
assessment and feedback to students
Developing resources for release
and evaluating them
IPR & Licensing Adviser:
June Hedges (JHe)
j.hedges@ucl.ac.uk
Licensing, rights, IP issues;
Work with resource developers and
advise project officer and team on
licensing and rights issues.
Disciplinary Academic
Group Co-ordinator:
Ulrich Tiedau (UT)
u.tiedau@ucl.ac.uk
Open Educational Resources, HE
teaching and learning
Institutional learning
technologies adviser:
Clive Young (CY)
c.p.l.young@ucl.ac.uk
Learning technologies, video, distance
learning
Conduct focus groups reviewing
resources from disciplinary
perspectives. Report results.
Exchange of ideas with OER Digital
Humanities Project
Review resources from a learning
technologist’s perspective. Work
with resource developers and
advise project officer and team,
particularly on video resources.
Page 10 of 27
Version: 1
Biographies of team members
Dr. Jane Hughes, Project Manager, is a lecturer, leads the Learning Technologies Programme in
the UCL Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT) and teaches on UCL’s
accredited PGCLTHE and MA Education programme. She advises on technology-based innovations
in teaching and learning and sits on the UCL Quality Management and Enhancement Committee. She
has worked on numerous development projects and was project leader for JISC DNER VDML Project.
Man Yang, Project Officer, has 10 years’ experience in learning technology support at UCL and
particular expertise in web development, web accessibility and database design. She has developed
and maintained the websites for projects including ATLAS (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/atlas) and CrossCALL
(http://www.ucl.ac.uk/calt/crosscall/ ), has worked with Jane Hughes on several funded projects and
on co-ordinating the UCL Teaching & Learning Network (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/tln/ ).
June Hedges, IPR and licensing adviser, is head of the Teaching and Learning Support Section of
UCL Library Services. She has extensive experience of Licensing schemes and of negotiating rights
with owners for re-use for educational purposes. In providing advice to the UCL community she has
developed considerable expertise on all issues relating IPR in the academic environment, in particular
issues surrounding the re-use of materials in online environments.
Dr. Holly Smith, resource developer: her main expertise is in academic development in higher
education. She has been Programme Leader of the Postgraduate Certificate in Learning and
Teaching in Higher Education (PGCLTHE) since it’s inception in 2002/03 and has also taught on the
PGCLTHE programmes at Liverpool John Moores University and the Open University, and been
employed as an external reviewer for the Open University and Institute of Education programmes.
Dr. Rosalind Duhs, resource developer, is a Senior Teaching Fellow with a long experience of
writing online resources for teaching and learning. She has a profound interest in helping academic
staff to learn to teach and studied courses to support their development for her PhD. She was a
pioneer in the use of virtual learning environments. Her special area of expertise is assessment and
feedback to students.
Dr. Ulrich Tiedau, academic evaluator, is a lecturer in UCL’s Dutch department, and a learning
technologist. He has worked on and across the borders of humanities and information and
communication technologies for most of his professional life and published widely on Belgian, Dutch
and German history, as well as on distance education and information science. He is Web
Publications Editor for ALT and a Fellow of the Higher Education Academy. He took part in the pilot
phase of JISC’s and the Academy’s OER programme in 2009/10 (OER Dutch history)
Dr. Clive Young, learning technologies adviser, has worked as a learning technology consultant in
several universities, most recently with Imperial College London. He has led several UK and
international projects on the pedagogic design of video and was an e-learning project evaluator for the
European Commission. Clive is also an associate lecturer at the Open University tutoring on their MA
in Online and Distance Education.
13. Programme Support
We anticipate that we will need regular reference to the programme support team in relation to IPR
and licensing and will make use of expertise from CETIS, JISC Legal and Web2Rights. We hope the
programme manager will facilitate networking and exchange of information between projects and help
with dissemination and awareness-raising. Although we are familiar with the JISC Evaluation
Framework we will welcome advice on project evaluation. We will ensure that a project representative
attends relevant programme events, such as the “Second Tuesday” Elluminate sessions; we are
pleased that the November session will focus on IPR and legal issues. We have already had contact
with the Evaluation and Synthesis team and look forward to working with them and the project with
which we are paired.
Page 11 of 27
Version: 1
14. Budget
The budget is attached in Appendix A.
Detailed Project Planning
15. Workpackages
The workpackages are detailed in the Workpackages document, Appendix B.
16. Evaluation Plan
There is overlap between our evaluation and quality management activities; some dissemination
activity will also contribute to evaluation and vice versa. We stress that evaluation is a responsibility of
all members of the project team, who are committed, generally to approaching their work reflexively.
We have dedicated a work package to evaluation, which indicates our view of its significance in the
project. We will regularly reflect on progress to ensure that we are meeting our stated deliverables
and milestones. The evaluation plan tabulated below shows that responsibilities in this area are
distributed through the team. We will also use our steering group to help us evaluate the project and
work closely with the Academy/JISC-appointed evaluators.
Formative evaluation will use focus groups, feedback questionnaires and reflection on experience,
with continuing reference to quality and evaluation frameworks, both in the OER programme and in
our institution. Summative evaluation will use a range of measures, as indicated in the table below.
At a micro level, we will be trialing and evaluating the resource units continually. We will treat the
development, release and trialing of the resource units as an iterative and formative process, so that
feedback received on the early resource units will help us to improve them, as well as informing the
development of later units. We do not underestimate the work involved to ensure that learning
resources are genuinely re-usable in new contexts and this will be a key focus of resource evaluation.
Finally, the timescale of the project limits impact evaluation. Ideally, we would carry out further
evaluation some time after the end of the project to find out more about whether and how the
resources are being used. We anticipate that, as dissemination in the form of publications and
presentations will continue after the project end date, we will conduct some evaluation activities to
inform this work after the project ends.
Timing
October
2010June
2011
Factor to Evaluate
Fitness for purpose
of resources
Questions to Address
Can the resources
provide support for UK
PSF accreditation and
other accredited
provision?
October
2010June
2011
Re-usability of
resources
Are the resources
usable by the target
audience? This includes
pedagogical aspects as
well as formats,
standards, accessibility.
Page 12 of 27
Method(s)
Mapping
exercise;
obtain
feedback on
samples from
steering
group, critical
friend,
workshop
particpants
Focus
groups;
Steering
group;
Workshop;
Usage
tracking;
Follow
programme
guidelines.
Measure of Success
Can be mapped to UK
PSF activities, core
knowledge and values;
stakeholders report
sampled materials to
be fit for purpose
Formative feedback
documented;
Formative feedback
acted on;
Number of resources
downloaded;
Positive feedback
received;
Resources conform to
programme guidelines
Version: 1
May-July
2011
Quality of support
materials
Have the support
materials been used?
Did the users find them
helpful?
JuneAugust
2011
Project
achievements
Are project outputs as
planned? Has the
project achieved its
stated aims?
Ongoing
Project processes
Was the process
satisfactory from
perspective of (a)
programme managers
and (b) project team?
Tracking use;
feedback
mechanisms
incorporated
with support
materials.
Review
progress
against
stated
milestones
and
deliverables;
Collaborate
with
evaluation
and synthesis
team on
impact
evaluation.
Internal:
discussion at
team
meetings,
review of
blog
postings;
Engage with
programme
team and
processes.
Materials downloaded;
Positive feedback
received
Outputs agreed in
project plan are
delivered.
Processes
documented;
Requirements from
programme team acted
on;
Project team
maintained and reports
satisfaction.
17. Quality Plan
Output
Timing
Quality
criteria
QA method(s)
October,
November
2010
Conforms to
programme
requirements
Follow template
and guidelines;
Submit draft for
feedback
October,
November
2010
Workplan in
achievable
Review and
feedback from
project team;
review by
steering group;
exchange with
other
OMAC/OER
project(s)
Output
Timing
Quality criteria
Page 13 of 27
Project plan
Evidence of
compliance
Approved by
programme
manager;
feedback acted
on
Agreed by team
members and
steering group;
Feedback acted
on.
QA
method(s)
Quality
responsibilities
JH
Quality tools
(if
applicable)
Template;
JISC project
management
guidelines
JH
N/A
Project website
Evidence
Quality
of
responsibilities
Quality tools
(if applicable)
Version: 1
compliance
October 2010
Usable
October 2010
Standards-compliant
October 2010 and
ongoing
Up-to-date
October 2010 and
ongoing
Linked with
programme website;
conforms to
programme
guidelines
Output
Timing
Quality criteria
Check
against
web
usability
guidelines
Check
against
institutional
and JISC
guidelines
Regular
review
Follow
guidelines
issued to
projects
Checklist
complete
MY
Web usability
guidelines
Checklist
complete
MY
Content-management
system;
Accessibility checks
Blog reflects
latest
activity
Checklist
MY/JH
Reminders; team
meetings
MY/JH
JISC/ Academy
template/guidelines
Resource unit description
QA method(s)
Evidence of
Quality
compliance
responsibilities
November
2010
Comprehensive
Checklist; team
review
Covers all
aspects Phase 1
identified as
important
JH/MY
November
2010
Conforms to
JISC/Academy
guidelines on
formats and
standards
Checklist; team
review
Checklist
complete
JH/MY
Quality
criteria
QA method(s)
Resource units
Evidence of
compliance
December
2010 –
June 2011
Fit for purpose
December
2010 –
June 2011
Pedagogically
appropriate
December
2010 AND
March
2011
Repurposable
(pedagogically)
Map to UK PSF
activities, core
knowledge and
values
Tutor, learner
and team
review;
consultation
with steering
group members
and critical
friend
Focus groups
Output
Timing
Page 14 of 27
Quality
responsibilities
Quality
tools
(if
applicable)
Tools
created by
Phase 1
CORRE
project
CETIS
guidelines;
OER Infokit
Quality tools
(if
applicable)
UK PSF
Can be mapped
to UK PSF
HS/RD
Positive
feedback on
resources in
use from
learners and
developers
HS/RD/JH
Questionnaire
for learners
Reports from
focus groups
positive
UT/
JISC
evaluation
guidelines
Version: 1
December
2010 AND
March
2011
Ongoing
throughout
project
Repurposable
(technically)
Checklist
Checklist
complete
MY/CY/JH
Usable
Checklist
Conforms to
usability criteria,
including those
in our own
resource unit
specification
MY/CY/JH
Ongoing
throughout
project
Licensed
appropriately
Initial and
ongoing review
Licensing
agreement
created and
approved by
programme
manager
JHe
Output
Timing
May –
July
2011
Output
Timing
May –
July
2011
May –
July
2011
May
2011
June –
July
2011
Output
Timing
March
Quality
criteria
Helpful to
educational
developers
Quality
criteria
Content
useful to
resource
users
Sound
quality
acceptable
to users
Format,
appropriate
Accurate
transcript
provided in
appropriate
format
Quality
criteria
Conforms to
QA method(s)
Initial review by
project team;
Review by
steering group
QA method(s)
Feedback
questionnaire
Use suitable
recording
equipment and
test in different
contexts (as
advised by UCL
Media Services)
Check against
CETIS guidelines
Professional
transcriber used;
QA method(s)
Follow template
Page 15 of 27
User guidance document
Evidence of
Quality
compliance
responsibilities
Approved by
steering group
JH, HS, RD
Audio commentaries
Evidence of
Quality
compliance
responsibilities
Positive response
JH/HS
to questionnaire
CORRE
framework;
Resource unit
specification
CORRE
framework;
OER Inforkit;
CETIS
guidelines;
Resource unit
specification
JISC OER
and in-house
tools and
charts
Quality tools
(if
applicable)
Feedback
questionnaire
Quality tools
(if applicable)
Online
questionnaire
Advice from Media
Services has been
followed.
Volunteer listeners
find quality
acceptable.
MY/CY
N/A
Conforms to
guidelines
Proof-reading
process complete;
Open format as for
all other
documents
(eg.odt)
MY
CETIS/CORRE
JH/MH
N/A
Interim report
Evidence of
compliance
Approved by
Quality
responsibilities
JH
Quality tools
(if
applicable)
Template;
Version: 1
2011
Output
Timing
April
OR
July
April
OR
July
April
OR
July
Output
Timing
August
2011
Output
Timing
Ongoing
and
extending
beyond
project
end date
programme
requirements
and guidelines;
Submit draft for
feedback
Quality
criteria
Meets
participant
expectations
Pedagogically
appropriate
QA
method(s)
Participant
feedback;
tutor reflection
Plan
developed
building on
expertise and
experience in
team;
Dialogue with
participants;
Results in
ideas for
change
amongst
participants
Quality
criteria
Conforms to
programme
requirements
Quality
criteria
Acceptable
by relevant
publications
and
conferences
(therefore
appropriate
to audience
and
purpose)
QA method(s)
Follow template
and guidelines;
Submit draft for
feedback
QA method(s)
Peer review
programme
manager
guidelines
Workshop
Evidence of
Quality
compliance
responsibilities
Positive
JH
feedback
Quality tools
(if applicable)
Feedback/evaluation
form
Team
approves plan
JH/RD/HS/MY
Team review
Participants
state intentions
and describe
plans for
change
JH/RD/HS/MY
Feedback/evaluation
form
Final report
Evidence of
compliance
Approved by
programme
manager
Quality
responsibilities
JH
Articles, presentations
Evidence of
Quality
compliance
responsibilities
Acceptance for
presentation
and/or publication
All
authors/presenters
Quality tools
(if
applicable)
Template;
guidelines
Quality tools
(if
applicable)
Event and/or
journal
requirements
and
guidelines
18. Dissemination Plan
Dissemination Strategy
We outline dissemination plans here but will also respond to unexpected opportunities that may arise
during the course of the project; we anticipate activities additional to those outlined below.
Dissemination is a major responsibility of the project manager. We will be guided by our steering
group and will exploit opportunities arising from the OER programme.
Page 16 of 27
Version: 1
Using our stakeholder analysis as a starting point, we will identify target audiences and fit
dissemination to their needs. For example, senior managers may respond to regular short summary
reports, while academics might look for evidence in a paper or case study available via an Academy
Subject Centre. The project website will be informative, up-to-date and interactive. Social networking
tools will be used to contact and build communities of interest, RSS Atom for publishing,
microblogging (eg Twitter) for timely dissemination of project developments and events as they arise.
We will use events and structures in our institutions (eg UCL's Teaching and Learning Network) and
our region (eg the M25 Learning Technology Group) as well as national and international conferences
such as ALT-C, and Academy and SEDA events and channels.
There is a small budget item for conference attendance. We will give one conference presentation
about the work of the project and use other relevant conferences that we attend as part of our day-today work to publicise the project.
Timing
November
2010
October
2010
Dissemination Activity
OER@UCL Website
Audience
Internal and
external
Internal and
External – project
team, programme
team, other
projects, interest
groups
Senior staff, internal
Purpose
Alert, interest,
inform
Alert, interest,
inform
Key Message
OER is important
at UCL
We are up and
running; We are
offering
something and
interesting
Ongoing
Briefings
Gain and
maintain support
Mailings (JISCmail lists)
Relevant interest
groups
ALT Newsletter
announcement
Learning
Techologists
Alert to
forthcoming
resource release
Announce first
release
This work will
benefit the
institution
Look out for
useful resources
Periodic,
December
to June
January
January
Academy and/or SEDA
Newsletter
announcement
Announce first
release
Ongoing
throughout
project
Blogging; working with
programme team;
participating in
Academy/JISC events
December
or early
January
Focus group 1
Educational
developers and
other programme
providers
Programme staff;
other OER projects;
internal and
external interest
groups
Academics/teachers
in different
disciplines
March and
June
Mailings; resource
release
Various
March or
early April
Focus group 2
Academics/teachers
in difference
disciplines
Announce
second and third
release
Assess fitness for
purpose in
different
disciplines – units
3-6
Project web site and
blog
Page 17 of 27
Please look and
give us some
feedback
Please look and
give us some
feedback
Maintain
engagement;
keep informed.
Will vary
Assess fitness for
purpose in
different
st
disciplines – 1 2
units
We value your
opinion about
how this might
apply to teaching
in your various
disciplines
Please try new
resources
We have acted
on your
suggestions and
value your
feedback on
further resources
Version: 1
February
Presentation:
Internal/local
July
Workshop:
Regional/national
Depends
on choice
of
conference
Conference presentation
(One of HEA, SEDA,
ALT conference)
A range of staff
engaged in
teaching and
supporting learning
Accredited scheme
designers and
tutors
Depends on
conference but
includes learning
technologists and
educational
developers
Discuss issues
around OER
Information and
support for OER
use is available
Explore
repurposing
Consider how
you would use
these resources
Use the
resources. Learn
from our
evaluation.
Report evaluation
of resources
19. Exit and Sustainability Plans
Project Outputs
Resource units
Project documentation,
including guidance
materials, example
pathways and case studies
Papers, including
publication(s) on re-use of
OER
Action for Take-up & Embedding
Promote work at academic
development conferences and in
relevant HE networks, including HEA
subject centres.
Publish case studies and target
potential users.
Submit to wide range of
journals/publications. Publish all
writing on project website and
institutional research repository.
Page 18 of 27
Action for Exit
Continue to embed resources in
activities undertaken by project
team.
Keep resource units available
on JORUM. Keep available on
project website for at least 3
years.
Keep available on project
website at UCL for at least 3
years. Work with Academy/JISC
to disseminate.
Open access via UCL
institutional research repository.
Available on project website at
UCL for at least 3 years.
Version: 1
Appendixes
Appendix A. Project Budget
Directly Incurred Staff
Project Officer (MY) Grade 7
9.09%FTE
Resource developer (HS) Grade 8
3.64% FTE
Resource developer (RD) Grade 8
3.64% FTE
Total Directly Incurred Staff (A)
Aug 2010 –
Jul 2011
3,904
Aug 2011 –
Jul 2012
374
4,278
2,133
205
2,338
2,073
199
2,272
£8,110
£778
£8,888
Aug 2010 –
Jul 2011
Non-Staff
Aug 2011 –
Jul 2012
TOTAL £
TOTAL £
Travel and expenses
Dissemination
Evaluation
Audio transcription
Learning Technology Support
Service (CY)
Total Directly Incurred Non-Staff
(B)
935
1,525
140
579
1,869
85
140
13
53
171
1,020
1,665
153
632
2,040
£5,048
£462
£5,510
Directly Incurred Total (A+B=C)
(C)
£13,158
£1,240
£14,398
Directly Allocated
Aug 2010 –
Jul 2011
6,976
562
7,538
979
94
1,072
1,301
129
1,430
1,142
109
1,251
1,723
£12,121
147
£1,041
1,870
£13,162
Indirect Costs (E)
£10,255
£877
£11,132
Total Project Cost (C+D+E)
£35,534
£3,158
£38,692
Project Manager/PI (JH) Grade 8
11.42% FTE
Licensing adviser (JHe) Grade 8
1.82%FTE
Academic evaluator (UT) Grade 8
2.42%FTE
Administrator (AG) Grade 8
2.12%FTE
Estates
Directly Allocated Total (D)
Page 19 of 27
Aug 2011 –
Jul 2012
TOTAL £
Version: 1
Amount Requested from JISC
Institutional Contributions
£17,767
£17,767
£1,579
£1,579
£19,346
£19,346
Percentage Contributions over
the life of the project
Academy
50 %
Partners
50%
Total
100%
Nature of Institutional Contributions
Directly Incurred
Staff
As above 50%
£4055
£389
£4444
£2524
£231
£2755
£6060.50
£520.50
£6581
Indirect Costs 50%
£5127.50
£438.50
£5566
Total Institutional Contributions
£17,767
1,579
£19,346
Directly Incurred Non Staff
As above 50%
Directly Allocated
As above 50%
Indirect Costs
Page 20 of 27
Version: 1
Contact: jane.hughes@ucl.ac.uk
Date: 30.09.2010
The Academy/JISC WORK PACKAGE
WORKPACKAGES
1: Project start-up
2: Initial stakeholder engagement
3: Describe a resource unit
4: Develop resource units
5: Release resources
6: Copyright and licensing
7: User guidelines and pathways
8: Dissemination
9: Evaluation
10: Reporting
11: Project management and sustainability
Project start date: September 2010
Project completion date: 31 August 2011
Duration: 12 months
Page 21 of 27
 Month
1
Sep
X
X
2
Oct
X
X
X
X
3
Nov
4
Dec
5
Jan
6
Feb
7
Mar
8
Apr
9
May
10
Jun
11
Jul
12
Aug
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Version: 1
YEAR 1
September
Milestone
Responsibility
Meeting
scheduled
JH
October 31
WORKPACKAGE 1: Project Start-up
Objective: To establish clear shared aims and
agree approaches, working relationships and
practices
1. Convene project team for initial meeting
Overview of workpackages agreed
2. Liaise with OER programme team
3. Complete project plan
Attend First Programme Meeting
Project Plan
Draft
submitted
4. Set up project website
JH
JH
MY
Project web site
5. Discussions with individual team members
6. Agree topic headings for resource units
Individual workpackages agreed
List of resource unit topics
7. Draft meeting schedule for duration of project
Meeting schedule in shared diary
WORKPACKAGE 2: Initial Stakeholder
Engagement
September
30 November
1November
30 November
Topic list
drafted
JH/MY
HS/RD/JH
MY
Objective: To establish relationships between the
project and key stakeholders
8. Convene and meet with project steering group
Page 22 of 27
Steering group approves project plan
Target groups and needs identified
Steering
group
complete.
Meeting
date
JH
Version: 1
9. Make contact with related OER projects
September
30 October
Common interests and synergies
identified
10. Convene discipline-based consultation group
1 December
20 December
11. Internal awareness-raising
October
30 November
Increased understanding of disciplinary
concerns and priorities
OER@UCL web site and business cards
12. External awareness-raising
November
30 November
JISCMail announcements
WORKPACKAGE 3: Describe a resource unit
1 October
30 November
agreed
Contact at
least 1
project
Membersh
ip agreed
UCL
agrees to
web site
Lists
identified
JH
UT
MY
JH/All
Objective: To clarify requirements and ensure
consistency of approach to development
13. Agree pedagogical requirements
14. Agree nature and range of a resource unit
15. Agree on formats, standards, metadata
16. Resource unit description
Note to project team; Blog post
Results of 13-15 documented as
Resource Unit Description on website
October
30 November
WORKPACKAGE 4: Develop resource units
October
June
16. 2 units developed, and evaluated
November
January
Resource units 1 and 2
17. 4 further units developed and evaluated
January
March 31
Resource units 3 to 6
18. 4 final units developed and evaluated
March
June 30
Resource units 7 to 10
Draft
description
RD, HS, JH
RD, HS, JH
MY, CY
MY, JH
Objective: To develop the resources for release
Page 23 of 27
Units
ready for
review
Units
ready for
review
Units
Team
Team
Team
Version: 1
ready for
review
19. Feedback (a) from disciplinary consultation group
20. Feedback (b) from disciplinary consultation
group
December
April
January
May
Feedback on units 1 and 2 documented
Feedback on units 3 to 6 documented
UT
UT
WORKPACKAGE 5: Release resources
November
July
21. Factors affecting discoverability: Review current
knowledge about target user search strategies
and preferred sources/systems
22. Factors affecting OER use: Review usability of
potential repositories
23. Staged release (see 17-19, WP 4) in multiple
repositories, with feedback invited.
November
January
Note to project team; blog post
JH, MY
November
January
Note to project team; blog post
JH, CY
January
June
Release of 10 resource units
WORKPACKAGE 6: Copyright and Licensing
October
July
October
November
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
November
December
February
July
Objective: To maximise discoverability and re-use
Release
repositories
agreed
MY
Objective: To establish agreements that enable
reuse and repurposing of released resources
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
Review good practice findings from OER Phase 1
Brief Resource Developers and Project Officer
Support Resource Developers
Liaise with JISC/HEA and other OER projects
Negotiate contributor agreements
Licensing outputs, including 3rd party content
WORKPACKAGE 7: User Guidelines and Pathways
Page 24 of 27
Notes to project team
Guidelines agreed
Issues addressed as they arise
Licensing agreement for resources
JHe
Jhe
Jhe
Jhe, JH, MY
JHe
JHe
Version: 1
Objective: To help target audience make use of
the released resources
30. Professional standards framework mapping
31. Documenting pathways
32. Capturing experience
April
May
February
May
June
June
WORKPACKAGE 8: Dissemination
October
August
33. Announce project start and progress
34. Increase OER awareness/presence in home
institution
35. Gain and maintain engagement
September
October
October
November
36. Alert to resource release
37. Raise awareness across disciplines
38. Networking and collaboration within community
of practice
January
December
Ongoing
June
April
39. Introduce resources to academic developers
April OR
July
April OR July
WORKPACKAGE 9: Evaluation
November
August
October
December
November
June
Moodle resource
User guidance document
Audio commentary and transcripts
draft
Recording
complete
RD
JH
HS/MY
Objective: To maximise awareness of project
Ongoing
Project website & blog
OER@UCL website
MY
MY, UT
Regular blogging and email updates;
briefings for senior staff in home
insititution
Mailings; blog and microblog postings
Focus groups
Participationin programme events;
Conference presentation;
Seminar/internal presentation
Workshop
Team
Evaluation plan (in project plan)
Section of interim and final report
JH
JH/MY
UT
JH/team
MY/Team
Objective: To assess the project’s processes and
achievements
40. Outline criteria and methodology
41. Evaluate resource units
Page 25 of 27
Team
Version: 1
42. Evaluate support materials
43. Evaluate project achievements
44. Evaluate project processes
May
June
Ongoing
July
August
WORKPACKAGE 10: Reporting
November
August
Section of final report
JH, RD, HS
Team
Team
Objective: To keep programme leaders and
steering group informed
45. Progress reports to steering group
46. Interim report
47. Final report
Ongoing
WORKPACKAGE 11: Project management and
sustainability
49. Develop a detailed work plan
50. Monitor progress and ensure that the project
maintains its schedule
51. Communication – project & programme:
Ensure a schedule of meetings is created to support
the project work
Keep website and blog updated
Chair project team meetings
Participate in project meetings with the Steering
Group
Participate in OER Programme meetings and cascade
information/outputs as appropriate to project team
52. Reporting (see WP 10)
September
2010
September
Ongoing
53. Ensure project work is promoted through
channels identified in project plan.
54. Encourage and facilitate publication of case
studies and academic papers
55. Ensure project outputs will remain openly
Page 26 of 27
February 21
August 2011
Email briefings
Interim report
Final report
JH/MY
JH
JH
Draft
Draft
August 2011
November
Project plan
JH/team
JH/MY
Meeting schedule
Minutes
Blog posts
JH/MY
Interim and final reports
JH
Ongoing
Various (see WP 8)
JH
Ongoing
Published case studies and paper
JH
Available Resource units
JH/MY
Ongoing
February
July
August
August
Version: 1
accessible via project website in addition to JORUM
and other repositories; project website to be
available for at least 3 years after project end date
Members of Project Team:
Rosalind Duhs (RD)
June Hedges (JHe)
Jane Hughes (JH)
Holly Smith (HS)
Ulrich Tiedau (UT)
Man Yang (MY)
Clive Young (CY)
Page 27 of 27

Project Document Cover Sheet

Transcription

Similar documents

Strategic Management of Projects MSc - The Bartlett

CoUIłI§fi§ rłAcEJi1,{ł - Polski Związek Kolarski

Series UCL product information sheet

SPRINGALL ACADEMY PICTURE RE

UCL - Tamlite Lighting

milton keynes bowl pendulum

Advanced Professional Development (ADP1) Professor Stephen Gomez

The David Beckham Academy

leadership - Ursuline Academy

COLUMBUS ACADEMY DAY AT LYND FRUIT FARM