Document 6524208

Transcription

Document 6524208

Project Acronym: Integrate - The University of Exeter Business School Integrative Technologies Project
Version: 1.3
Contact: Ali Press – [email protected]
th
Date: 26 January 2009
Project Document Cover Sheet
Project Information
Project Acronym
Integrate
Project Title
The University of Exeter Business School Integrative technologies
Project
Start Date
1st November 2008
Lead Institution
University of Exeter
Project Director
Liz Dunne
Project Manager &
contact details
Ali Press
[email protected] | 01392 725719
Partner Institutions
n/a
Project Web URL
www.exeter.ac.uk/integrate
Programme Name
(and number)
e-Learning
Programme Manager
Lisa Gray
31st October 2010
End Date
Document Name
Document Title
Project Plan
Reporting Period
n/a
Author(s) & project
role
Ali Press, Project Manager
Liz Dunne, Project Director
Date
31st March 2009
URL
if document is posted on project web site
Access
X Project and JISC internal
Page 1 of 60
Document title: JISC Project Plan
Last updated: April 2007
Filename
Q:\PROJECTS\JISC 08-08
Integrate project\JISC
documents\Integrate Project
Plan 1-3.doc
General dissemination
Version: 1.3
th
Document History
Version
Date
Comments
1.1
2009-01-31
First version of plan presented to Steering Group
1.2
2009-02-10
Amended with feedback from Critical Friend and Steering
Group
1.3
2009-03-31
Amended with feedback from JISC Programme Manager
and services
Page 2 of 60
Document title: University of Exeter Business School Integrative Technologies Project: JISC Project Plan
Last updated: December 2008
Version: 1.3
th
Table of Contents
Project Document Cover Sheet..................................................................................................1
Overview of Project ...................................................................................................................4
1. Background ............................................................................................................................4
2. Aims and Objectives ..............................................................................................................8
3. Overall Approach.................................................................................................................11
4. Project Outputs.....................................................................................................................18
5. Project Outcomes .................................................................................................................18
6. Stakeholder Analysis ...........................................................................................................19
7. Risk Analysis .......................................................................................................................20
8. Standards..............................................................................................................................21
9. Technical Development .......................................................................................................22
10. Intellectual Property Rights ...............................................................................................24
Project Resources.....................................................................................................................24
11. Project Partners ..................................................................................................................24
12. Project Management ..........................................................................................................24
13. Programme Support ...........................................................................................................26
14. Budget ................................................................................................................................26
Detailed Project Planning ........................................................................................................26
15. Workpackages....................................................................................................................26
16. Evaluation Plan ..................................................................................................................27
17. Quality Plan .......................................................................................................................33
Overall Quality Plan ............................................................................................................33
Output Specific Quality Plan ...............................................................................................34
18. Dissemination Plan ............................................................................................................40
19. Exit and Sustainability Plans .............................................................................................43
Appendix A. Project Budget ....................................................................................................46
Appendix B. Detailed Breakdown of Workpackages ..............................................................48
Page 3 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
JISC Project Plan
Overview of Project
1. Background
The University of Exeter Business School is highly successful. It has a top 10 ranking in all
subjects in The Times university league tables and was the highest ranked Business School in
the 2007 National Student Survey for overall satisfaction in all four subjects (Management,
Accounting, Finance and Business Studies). For 2008 student applications have risen
dramatically (+26% for undergraduates, including a 95% rise from international students),
further evidence of its growing reputation. In its recent business plan, the Business School
has anticipated expansion from the current 1,000 students a year to over 2,500 by 2014. In
addition, the University has recently entered into joint venture with INTO University
Partnerships1; this will lead to 40% of the undergraduate cohort being international students
in the next few years. It is mission critical for the University that this ‘flagship School’
continues to provide an excellent educational experience for all its students; technology is
envisaged as playing a major role in this.
The School’s education strategy addresses the agendas and issues faced in sustaining an
excellent and coherent education for large numbers of increasingly diverse students. Figure 1
captures these and provides the broad investigative framework for work packages 2 and 3 of
the Business School Integrative Technologies project.
The outer ring of the diagram provides an indicative range of technology solutions that will
be drawn upon during the project to address how the delivery of the School’s programmes
might be joined up to provide an integrative learning environment. Many of these educational
and administrative technologies are already in use in the School providing knowledge-based
resources and administrative information, but they have not yet been coordinated to address
pedagogic and management issues such as those faced by the Business School; other
technologies are new to the School, or are being used in small pockets of innovation. The
project will be used as a vehicle to pilot the potential of some of these new technologies and
to upscale use of existing technologies. The initial mapping process has identified some key
areas for supporting students through technology, but also indicates that narrowing the focus
too much might be counterproductive. The mapping process has also revealed how many of
the items are overlapping. As an example, one module is now looking to incorporate lecture
capture for video streaming, use of Flip video cameras to capture appropriate parts of
tutorials, personal response systems, SMS, computer aided assessment and better
organisation of existing online resources. Through this incorporation will come the project’s
vision of an integrated learning experience.
The project will bring the Business School students, academics and support staff together
with specialists working in Education Enhancement (a new strategic grouping of four interrelating teams that work collaboratively on academic staff development, technologysupported learning, student skills and learning spaces) and specialist subject consultants
Page 4 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
(Library Research Support). The project team will select and work on innovative and
integrative approaches to delivering six first year modules; where appropriate modules will
also be selected from other year groups. The selected modules (Principles of Economics,
Theory of Management, Introduction to Accounting, Introduction to Statistics, Mathematics
for Economists, and Introduction to Econometrics) involve either the whole student cohort or
a large part of it and cover key topics from across all subject areas within the School.
Figure 1 – Agendas, issues, technological ideas and solutions
Collaborative working between the Business School and Education Enhancement specialists
throughout the mapping process has revealed a number of areas and ideas to prioritise over
the course of the project, many of which will support an overall change in culture from
curriculum delivery to a more flexible and process-oriented approach. Two main challenges
arose in each of the six modules: firstly, there has been a large increase in student numbers;
and, secondly, an increase in diversity of students, particularly international students. In
addressing these challenges, the project will make use of technologies that:
1. are routine for some, but by no means all, academics (such as use of WebCT to
provide lecture notes and additional support materials, formative feedback from webbased quizzes and tests);
Page 5 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
2. have been tested within the institution but are far from embedded (such as electronic
submission of assignments both to support plagiarism detection and to enable efficient
administrative processes);
3. are presently untried at Exeter (such as the use of personal response systems during
large group lectures, video-streaming of lectures so that all content can be constantly
available for reviewing and revision, and use of SMS; the extension of electronic
submission of assignments for online marking and feedback; electronic
examinations);
4. promote a sense of community (such as web 2.0 tools) for students both within
modules and across the first year cohort.
Mapping has also highlighted the potential for linking with other institutional projects and
developments, for example, the rolling out of BART (an electronic tool for monitoring
submission of assignments) across the institution, as well as a bid for alumni funding
(DARO) that is exploring the use of personal response systems with students. The project
will also serve as a demonstrator for the benefits of a ‘hub and spoke’ model being
considered by the University’s e-Learning Review group. This model would see Educational
Technologists embedded within schools and supported by a central unit
Challenge to be investigated by the project:
How to promote a learning ethos in which students participate, engage and feel known
Academic Viewpoint
Specific project foci:
Support through technology:
Student attendance
Attendance monitoring system (RFID?)
Student engagement and participation in class In-lecture feedback (personal response system,
(lectures and seminars) and out of class
SMS, Twitter?)
(practice and consolidation)
Support resources (WebCT, textbook link
Student motivation
sites, blogs, wikis, streamed video?)
Communication routes
Peer-led support (Ning?)
Administration Viewpoint
Requests, information, feedback
(email/website/discussion fora/synchronous
online support?)
Student Viewpoint
Student engagement and participation in class In-lecture feedback (personal response system,
(lectures and seminars) and out of class
SMS, Twitter?)
(practice and consolidation)
Support resources (WebCT, textbook link
sites, blogs, wikis, streamed video?)
Peer-led support (Ning?)
Page 6 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
How to manage assessment and feedback with large numbers
Academic Viewpoint
Summative examinations / tests
Electronic examination with electronic
Formative tests / assignments with associated marking (Assessment21?)
feedback
Online testing with instant feedback (WebCT,
QMP?)
Plagiarism detection
Individually tailored e-feedback (Captivate?)
Audio feedback
e-submission, e-marking, e-feedback
Turnitin
Administration Viewpoint
As above
e-submission system (online, BART?)
e-feedback forms
Turnitin, to include Grademark for marks and
feedback
Student Viewpoint
Formative tests with timely feedback
Online testing with instant feedback (WebCT,
QMP?)
Individually tailored e-feedback (Captivate?)
Audio feedback
e-submission, e-marking, e-feedback
How to promote a collaborative community in which diversity is both valued and well-catered
for
Academic (Pastoral) Viewpoint
Induction / team development
Podcasts, student-created video, photos
Pdp / employability
e-pdp
Online support for academic skills
Online support for presentations/essay
writing/revision?
Administration (Pastoral) Viewpoint
Requests, information, feedback
(email/website/discussion fora/synchronous
online support?)
Student Viewpoint
Student induction
Student created content (podcasts, vodcasts)
Page 7 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
2. Aims and Objectives
Broadly the project aims to deliver and evaluate collaboratively planned technologyenhanced learning activities and experiences for all students across six first year modules.
Three key themes emerged from across these modules during the project’s initial mapping
process: promoting a learning ethos in which students participate, engage and feel known;
managing assessment and feedback with large numbers of students; and promoting a
collaborative community in which diversity is both valued and catered for. In addressing
these themes the project will pilot a range of different technologies (interventions chosen by
the module leaders to address specific areas of practice will be complemented with centrally
envisioned initiatives) to ascertain their effectiveness. Successful interventions will be
carried forward for wider use in the Business School and other schools. Key to the project
will be the collaborative involvement of both staff and students in designing, supporting and
delivering the curricular changes.
The project will contribute to the JISC e-learning programme vision for 2008-12 by
addressing aspects of several of the five domains. E-assessment is central to the project in
being one area of curriculum delivery that we anticipate will have the most impact on
students in relation to both learning and achievement; e-pdp (a form of e-Portfolio), and its
ongoing development as a means of learners linking activities and achievements within and
beyond the curriculum, contributes to the concept and implementation of an integrative
curriculum; students will be working with a variety of curriculum-based learning resources
and activities and will be supported by technology to engage in more constructive and
creative ways; administration becomes important in the context of streamlining new activity
relating to, for example, management of electronic submission of assignments, plagiarism
detection, and general office procedures that enable better monitoring of student progress.
The proposed project objectives align with all three themes in the vision for curriculum
delivery (JISC Circular 08/08 paragraph 24-30). ‘Learning and teaching practice’ addresses
the vision of flexible and accessible provision for diverse students, and in particular in
supporting an international community. In addition to assessment and e-pdp, the project will
have a strong focus on supporting academic literacy/numeracy and the development of high
order meta-cognitive skills (reflection, self-awareness, ability to make informed judgments
and responsibility for their learning and progression). These skills are central to the concept
of an integrative learning experience and are built into the module descriptors for the six
selected modules. Professional development for staff will mean that teaching practices will
draw on evidence about how technologies can best be employed and of students’
expectations. ‘Technology and standards’ will focus on extracting greater benefits and
synergies from existing institutional systems. An integral approach will be to ensure that
evaluation data is used to inform future investment. All technologies used to support this bid
provide interoperability for data and use known standards to store and deliver content to staff
and students. ‘Strategy and policy’ is central to the success of the project, especially in
relation to the institutional mission and future ambitions. Leadership, development support
for module and programme leaders is particularly important as they are expected to spearhead
future developments, sustainability and dissemination.
Page 8 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Project objectives fit closely with several of the anticipated outcomes (JISC Circular 08/08
paragraph 31) and are incorporated into the table below:
LEARNING and TEACHING PRACTICE
To deliver and evaluate collaboratively planned
technology- enhanced activities and experiences for all
students across six first year modules.
To develop means of curriculum delivery that supports
flexible learning with particular emphasis on the
challenge of large numbers and internationalisation
To experiment with and evaluate what might form an
appropriate technology-enhanced mix for providing an
integrative and skills-rich learning experience
To provide professional development for staff and
students across a variety of roles in the Business School
to ensure that they can actively and confidently
contribute to the design of technology-enhanced
integrative learning experiences
TECHNOLOGY AND STANDARDS
To implement and evaluate the use of technologies that
will support the project’s challenges including :-•
Incorporate Web 2.0 technologies to ascertain ways in
which they can promote communicative and
collaborative communities of learners integrated with
Exeter’s mainstream proprietary systems. • Assessment
and feedback underpinned by technology, incorporated
within the curriculum. • Use of institutional e-pdp
(online portfolio) system so as to enable learners to have
an integrated record and understanding of their own
learning experience (rather than disconnected elements).
ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES
Learners will have led on designing
experiences
and
will
have
experienced a ‘step change’ in the
way the curriculum is delivered;
students will have been involved in
workshops to train staff.
Variety in curriculum delivery will
have been developed or adapted to
support flexible learning and
preferences.
The Business School will have
trialed, evaluated and embedded
integrative approaches and shared
these with colleagues in the UK and
through the Carnegie Institute,
USA.
All staff contributing to the six first
year modules and students on
bursary placements will have
attended sessions and enhanced
capacity, knowledge and skills.
Teaching and learning behaviours
will show tangible evidence of
change with regard to the use of
technology.
Systems available within the
University will have been used
more effectively and efficiently
than is currently the case to
provide, re-purpose and store
information for, and about, learners.
The technology will become more
integrated into the curriculum and
be an integral part of learning
material delivery and assessment.
Evaluation data from the project
will inform future strategy and
investment in IT infrastructure to
ensure continued interoperability.
STRATEGY AND POLICY
To use students to support students and staff and to Students will have engaged with
engage with the processes of change in a variety of students through learning with
Page 9 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
ways.
To facilitate the smooth transition of students and
student data between INTO and the Business School
To develop improved understanding at senior
management level of effective curriculum delivery
through technology, and to support greater
connectedness between the role of technology in
enhancing learning and the meeting of strategic
institutional targets for becoming a Top Ten University.
To influence planning for technology rich learning
spaces in Estates strategies and in particular for the
phased Business School infrastructure project.
To evaluate, report on and disseminate project outcomes
as specified in the work plan
peers, directly supporting peers and
by playing a part in the evaluation
phase (design, delivery and
undertaking); students will have
designed and delivered workshops
both with and for staff
International students will have
access to materials specifically
aimed at supporting their induction
and adjustment to UK Higher
Education.
Improved understanding at senior
management level; Evidence of
action through financial support and
strategic planning for future
investment in technology enhanced
learning.
Report on best use of technology
for learning, and action plan for
implementation.
Project outcomes made available to
the wider community.
The direction of strategic education planning within the University provides a solid base and
rationale for the proposed project and provides assurance that the project outcomes will be
taken forward and embedded in other Schools. Of the nine key performance indicators in the
University’s Strategic Plan (2007-11), four relate directly to this project: satisfaction scores
as rated by the National Student survey; undergraduate completion and degree classifications;
graduate-level employment or further study; and the proportion of the total student population
that are international fee-payers. The University is currently revising its Education Strategy
and is placing greater emphasis on providing integrative student learning experiences through
technology over the next three years. Building on our e-learning benchmarking exercise and a
successful pathfinder project (on the use of video conferencing), we have recently
Page 10 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
commissioned external consultants to review our use of and support for e-learning. The
preliminary outcomes of the review reinforce the need to provide development and support to
academic and other staff if our strategic ambitions are to be met. We are planning to
implement a ‘hub and spoke’ model to create a expert network of support across the
University. This project provides one very important element of this strategy as it will
provide a focus, drive and energy that is difficult to achieve without targeted funding. This
external funding will be complemented by other (and different) School-based technology
initiatives funded by University. This diversity is a strength we shall draw on in that it will
allow a comparative analysis of pedagogic models for embedding technology in the delivery
of the curriculum. Central to the new Education Strategy will be a cross cutting inspiring
educational leadership theme which will bring internationally significant higher education
strategists to Exeter. This project will stimulate one strand of the new Education Strategy by
linking the University with the Carnegie Institute.
To enhance graduate level employment a new skills-based Exeter Award is being launched in
2008 which will reinforce the value of undertaking work placements (to attain the award
students must undertake a 24 hour placement). The use of student bursaries will be built
around the opportunity for student’s to take the Award providing a useful model for the
University more widely.
The project provides particular value to JISC and the wider community because (a) it
addresses challenges about cohort size and diversity which are likely to be experienced by
many UK HEIs; as a result the transferability of the outcomes from this project will be
paramount and (b) it introduces a powerful concept from the highly respected Carnegie
Institute in the United States into UK thinking about integrative learning environments. This
project takes the thinking from the Carnegie project forward, drawing on prior experience but
developing new and innovative approaches to integrative technologies which are underpinned
by the existing conceptual framework. These will be shared with the JISC and wider
communities through dissemination strategies which include working closely with colleagues
from the Carnegie Institute.
3. Overall Approach
The Integrate project will be divided into 10 work packages (WP) delivered by the following
actors:
Project Manager (PM) – e-learning Advisor (Ali Press)
Principal Investigator (PI) – Education Enhancement’s Head of Project Development (Liz
Dunne)
Education Technologist (ET) – (Laura Taylor)
Co-Investigator (CO1) – e-Learning Advisor (Nick Birbeck)
Co-Investigator (CO2) – Head of e-Learning (Matt Newcombe)
Co-Investigator (CO3) – Head of Education Enhancement (Sue Burkill)
Co-Investigator (CO4) – Education Research & Evaluation Advisor (Tom Browne)
Other Staff (OS1) – Senior Teaching Fellow, Business School (Juliette Stephenson)
Other Staff (OS2) – Lecturers and Teaching Fellows, Business School (six core modules)
Bursary Students (BS) – students employed through project funds
Page 11 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
WP1 – Project Management
Scope: The project will be managed by the e-Learning Advisor in close collaboration with
Education Enhancement’s Head of Project Development and driven by additional leaders
within Education Enhancement and other experts in technology-supported learning. This
group will make up the ‘Project Working Group’ that will organize the day-to-day running
and maintenance of the project. Academics and Teaching Fellows from each subject area
within the Business School will form the broader ‘Whole Group’, and bursary students (see
WP6) together with the Staff Student Liaison Committee will comprise the ‘Student Liaison
Group’. The ‘Whole Group’ will be central to the processes of bringing about change, and
will be involved in collaborative decision-making about ways of working, evaluation, and
feedback and dissemination. Formal meetings will be timetabled on a regular basis (between
weekly and six-monthly depending on level of involvement in the project). The Project
Management Steering Group, meeting on 5 occasions over the 2-year period, will guide and
inform project processes and outcomes. It will comprise a representative sample of Project
Group members, an INTO representative and a student representative plus senior University
staff (Head of Education Enhancement, Deputy Head of the Business School) and the
project’s JISC-appointed critical friend, Malcolm Ryan. To provide maximum transfer of
ideas and findings into University strategy, senior managers (eg. DVC, Dean of Taught
Programmes, Head of Academic Services), the Head and Deputy Head of the Business
School, a small number of the project group, and external consultants including the
Economics HEA Subject Centre link (Professor John Sloman) and an internationally
renowned expert in technology for learning (Betty Collis) will form a Strategic Management
Steering Group.
Deliverables: A well-managed project that satisfies the Aims and Objectives by providing
effective change within the Business School and understandings that benefit the institution
and the wider community.
Carried out by: PM, PI, CO1, CO2, CO3, CO4
WP2 - Review of Current Practice
Scope: Benchmarking data gathered during Exeter's involvement in the initiative, as well as
external and internal survey data on the Business School, will contribute to the initial baseline
description of first year curriculum delivery that can be used for evaluation of change. A
questionnaire survey of Business School students repeated periodically during the project will
also provide baseline data. Alongside this, a continued review of current literature,
workshops, presentations, projects and reports, alongside engagement with the CIRCLE
community and project cluster, will enable understanding of known good practice, current
thinking and trends. The literature will be revisited throughout the project as it takes on
greater meaning when grappling with issues in practice.
Deliverables: A review report detailing current practices in curriculum delivery and use of
technology in the Business School, to serve as a baseline for ongoing change and evaluation
of development; a brief outline of literature that relates to and can specifically inform this
project; start of an ongoing website and weblog to be continued throughout.
Carried out by: PM, PI, CO1, CO2, CO4
WP3 - Understanding the Challenges
Scope: Understanding the key challenges will be at the heart of this stage of the project,
along with addressing the Aims and Objectives outlined in detail in section 2, and the
Page 12 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
articulation of desired changes. This, together with WP2 above, will be achieved in close
collaboration with Business School both staff and students. The term ‘integrative’ will also be
investigated in order to establish a joint agreed definition with stakeholders.
Deliverables: A plan of action demonstrating technological solutions for implementing
change and providing a plan of delivery, dependent on the findings of the review above.
Carried out by: PM, PI, CO1, CO3, CO4, OS1, OS2
WP4 - Planning Curriculum Delivery
Scope: The primary activity during this phase will be to embark on induction and
professional development in technology-supported teaching for all newly-appointed Teaching
Fellows and bursary students in the Business School, led by the project’s E-Learning
Advisor, Education Technologist, staff from the Education Enhancement Unit and students
where appropriate. All activities will be planned to address the challenges and associated
needs outlined within workpackages 2/3. The programme will commence early in the project,
to capture interest and to set out expectations, and will continue in a more tailored way as
training needs become more apparent and the project progresses. Newly-appointed Teaching
Fellows for 2009-10 will be drawn into the project through professional development when
appropriate.
Deliverables: A report on the training activities undertaken, their reception and impact; an
outline, and resources, for a training package that could be used in different contexts in the
University and more widely.
Carried out by: PM, PI, ET, CO1, CO2, OS1, OS2
WP5 - Piloting and Implementation
Scope: The kind of technologies to be used during this phase, led by Business School staff
supported by Education Enhancement specialists and bursary students, will be determined
during WP2/3. The following will figure highly in the early piloting and implementation
stage with different modules expressing particular interest in different technologies (see
Appendix B for detailed analysis):
• Taking full advantage of all relevant facilities within the institution's long-standing
Virtual Learning Environment VLE (WebCT) including discussion fora, blogs and
journals.
• Using a range of Web 2.0 technologies (e.g. wikis, social networking tools, virtual
worlds) to support learning and teaching aims.
• Promoting greater use of Computer Assisted Assessment (CAA) to address the
challenge of large student groups; using technology to provide faster and richer
sources of feedback on assignments (e.g. audio feedback); and promoting on-line
submission of assignments and investigate technology-supported methods of on-line
marking.
• Using a range of technological innovation to ensure that large lecture audiences feel
engaged (interactive tablets, voting systems, videoconferencing, streamed video
recordings) before, during and after the event.
• Developing learning materials around technology-captured events such as lectures,
and group presentations with particular concentration on the use of subject specific,
already existing, reusable learning objects. Materials will be aimed at supporting the
Business School buddying system (a system where home students are buddied with
international students) and inductions and will be focused on the different needs of
home and international students as appropriate.
Page 13 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
•
Promoting the use of technology to provide virtual tutorials, pastoral care and support
for Personal Development Planning (e-PDP), and making use of a range of interactive
technologies to provide virtual drop-in surgeries to support curriculum activities.
• Using technology to tackle issues of plagiarism and academic honesty.
By July 2009 the focus will move to integration of the above based upon the principles of
integrative learning.
Early Pilots Commencing January 2009
BEA1006/7 Accounting 1/2
500+ students.
New course this year.
Planned Activity:
Increased use of WebCT tools
Assessment - online quiz (from text book) / feedback
MCQs
Echo 360
BEM1007 Theory of Management
Semester 1: 260 students
Semester 2: 85 students
Before:
WebCT for lecture notes.
Planned:
Echo 360
Improved Ppts (eg. graphics, embedded videos)
Tutorials - Knowing students level of technological abilities
MCQs
Video in tutorials - showcase the best case studies
BEE1025 Statistic for Business & Management
180 students.
New course this year.
Planned:
Tutorials in computer lab
Formative assessment MCQs in WebCT
2 summative assignments – Turnitin
WebCT feedback (individual)
Vodcasts (recording)
Student to student platforms
BEE1023 Introduction to Econometrics
186 students.
Before:
WebCT for ppt files.
Planned:
Summative MCQs in WebCT (Motivation)
Changes (Stats)
Page 14 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
BEE1024 Mathematics for Economists
296 students.
Before:
Link from WebCT to personal web pages (not ppts).
Planned:
WebCT repository
Web Links (HEA Maths Projects, etc)
ARS - before course (each unit) - check level of competency with the subject and then check
again at end.
Flip video - tutorials - put in WebCT
Echo 360?
Tablet PC?
SMS
BEE1001 Principles of Economics
655 students.
Before:
WebCT for ppt files.
My EconLab - Marking feedback online. Not compulsory but well used. 573 students
registered.
Planned:
ARS
Attendance monitoring
Echo 360
Assessment marking overlays
Second Life?
Deliverables: A series of case-studies detailing the outcomes of the identified pilots.
Carried out by: PM, ET, CO1, CO4, OS1, OS2, BS
WP6 - Students Supporting Staff and Students
Through the provision of 24 x £500 student bursaries funded by the project, the following
activities will be developed with first and second year students (with a deliberate balance of
home and international). Through these activities the projects will engage closely with and
better understand students’ needs in using and understanding technology. Initiatives will be
piloted from February to June 2009 and integrated into activity for the full year starting from
October 2009. Students will collaborate in:
a) Enhancing the existing Business School’s buddy-system' by identifying second and
third year students willing to mentor others in learning through the technologyenhanced activities provided by the School.
b) Developing support activities through FEELE, the Finance and Economics
Experimental Laboratory at Exeter, which undertakes research into economic
behaviour through interactive gaming experiments.
c) Working as e-learning champions within the School
d) Promoting activities such as e-pdp and buddying through student-made
podcasts/vodcasts.
e) Assisting with on-line support into basic skills (including on-line tutoring).
Page 15 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
f) Providing targeted support specifically for students having difficulty in using
technologies new to them, including e-pdp.
The Business School and Education Enhancement staff will collaborate to provide any
training required. All bursary students will gain their Exeter Award through this and other
skills-based activity.
Deliverables: A report focusing on the views and experiences of students; student-led casebook of technology practices they appreciate, and why; student-made video and audio. These
will be made available via the Exeter Student Guild to other student unions in the UK and
beyond.
Carried out by: PM, ET, PI, CO1, CO4, OS1, OS2
WP7 - Ongoing Evaluation
Scope: High value is given to regular review and to ongoing evaluation. An evaluation plan
will show how outcomes will be evaluated against the initial review and the identified
challenges, and the technology-related activities that will be used to promote enhancement
and change. The focus will be both on processes and outcomes, some of which can be
quantified and some of which will be less tangible, with the intention of enabling continuous
improvement. Evaluation is important in terms of dissemination, but is crucial to the
processes of change. Evidence-led change is especially powerful on a local level because it
allows the dispelling of myths that tend to hinder new developments (for instance, that using
a plagiarism detection tool is an administrative burden, or that all that international students
want is to be ‘spoon-fed’). The University’s HEA Pathfinder project demonstrated that
evidence-led change has a potential for promoting real interest and for generating informed,
context-specific discussion.
Evaluation will begin at an early stage, so that it becomes part of an ongoing reflective
process, with understandings being consistently built upon, and with aspects of the project
being refined and adapted throughout. Importantly, it will include evaluation of the efficiency
and benefits of all technologies used, especially in the pilot phase. All stakeholders will be
central to the evaluation process (students, academic staff, project staff and Teaching
Fellows, senior managers in the School and University, Steering Group). Feedback will be
gained throughout the project, both informally and formally. Informal feedback will occur
through the central project team working within the School, observing and supporting staff
and students, listening to their needs and engaging with issues as they arise. Formal feedback
will be gained by brief questionnaires, focus groups and short interviews at key points in the
project (May/June 2009 and 2010), as well as ongoing activities through SMS/PRS, flip
camera records, wikis or blogs. Brief student-made videos will also provide the student voice
on aspects such as good and poor experiences in the context of technology-enabled learning.
The Steering Groups and external consultants will be expected to promote critical reflection
and analytic review of processes and outcomes.
Deliverables: Updates to the University’s Education Strategy Group as evidence becomes
available (so as to impact upon future recommendations for policy and strategy);
contributions to the six-monthly interim reports, case-studies and final report.
Carried out by: PM, PI, CO1, CO4, OS1, OS2
Page 16 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
WP8 - Dissemination
Scope: The audiences for dissemination will be HE students, HE teachers, administrative
staff, pedagogic support staff and trainers, technology support staff, educational researchers,
and policy and strategic decision makers within the Business School, within the University,
and beyond the institution. Internal dissemination will be achieved through: making
information, reports and resources available on a purpose-built web-site; School meetings,
including Staff/Student liaison groups; University committees; lunchtime seminars;
workshops and away days; and conference presentations and papers. There will be ongoing
staff development awareness raising for Exeter staff about the tangible benefits of
technologies. Directors of Learning and Teaching in all academic Schools will be required to
review feedback gained by the project, to comment on outcomes and to suggest further
developments. The new University Innovation Group/ Web 2.0 Thinktank will serve as a
repository of knowledge and expertise across the institution in order to promote the benefits,
structured development and adoption of new technologies, and to minimise institutional risks
concerned with widespread adoption of new initiatives. This group will work with the
proposed project to ensure the best use of technology and will use evaluation evidence to
make sure the institution learns from evidence-based practice. External dissemination will
include liaising with JISC, other projects within the Curriculum Delivery strand, particularly
the cluster Integrate has been assigned to, and with HEA subject centres, in particular
Business, Management, Accountancy and Finance (BMAF), and Economics. A weblog will
be used for reporting on progress on a continual basis and will be available to any audience.
Findings on technology-enhanced education will specifically be made available to the INTO
network.
Deliverables: Interim and final reports including a report for the Student Guild at Exeter, an
evaluation report, case studies to outline new use of technologies, changes in practice, impact
on staff and students, and illustrations of practice, ongoing weblog with a record of project
activity and outcomes, student-made videos, outline training packages.
Carried out by: PM, PI, CO1, CO3, CO4, OS1, OS2
WP9 - Embedding New Practices and Sustainability
Scope: This stage will address the extent to which activities have become embedded so as to
provide genuine transformation of curriculum delivery, and how they have addressed the
challenges set out in section 1 and the proposed Aims and Objectives (section 2).
Sustainability will be a crucial and driving factor and will have been planned for from the
very beginning of the project. For instance, a series of lunchtime workshops will be run for
the Business School (and other Schools) in order to pass on the lessons learnt in each of the
pilots; findings will be presented at School roadshows; LTHE extras roadshows will be used
to disseminate findings to staff new to teaching in HE; and findings will be shared across
teams in the Education Enhancement Unit.
Deliverables: Case studies and evidence of sustainability within University strategies.
Carried out by: PM, PI, ET, CO1, CO2, CO3, CO4, OS1, OS2
WP10 - Final evaluation
Scope: The entire project will be subject to a detailed and critical evaluation during the last
three months.
Deliverables: Case studies, final report, an evaluation report reflecting on the issues and
processes, what has been learnt and questions for the future.
Carried out by: PM, PI, ET, CO1, CO2, CO3, CO4, OS1, OS2
Page 17 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
4. Project Outputs
WP1 Deliverables: A well-managed project that satisfies the Aims and Objectives by
providing effective change within the Business School and understandings that benefit the
institution and the wider community.
WP2 Deliverables: A review report detailing current practices in curriculum delivery and
use of technology in the Business School, to serve as a baseline for ongoing change and
evaluation of development; an outline of literature that relates to and can specifically inform
this project; start of an ongoing website and weblog to be continued throughout.
WP3 Deliverables: A plan of action demonstrating technological solutions for implementing
change and providing a plan of delivery, dependent on the findings of the review above; an
evaluation plan to show how outcomes will be evaluated against the initial review and the
identified challenge(s).
WP4 Deliverables: A report on the training activities undertaken, their reception and impact;
an outline, and resources, for a training package that could be used in different contexts in the
University and more widely.
WP5 Deliverables: A series of case-studies detailing technologies selected for and outcomes
of the identified pilots.
WP6 Deliverables: A report focusing on the views and experiences of students; student-led
case-book of technology practices they appreciate, and why; student-made video.
WP7 Deliverables: Regular updates to the University’s Education Strategy Group (so as to
impact upon future recommendations for policy and strategy); contributions to the sixmonthly interim reports, case-studies and final report.
WP8 Deliverables: Interim and final reports including a report for the Student Guild at
Exeter, an evaluation report, case studies to outline new use of technologies, changes in
practice, impact on staff and students, and illustrations of practice, ongoing weblog with a
record of project activity and outcomes, student-made videos, outline training packages.
WP9 Deliverables: Case studies and evidence of sustainability within University strategies.
WP10 Deliverables: Dissemination activities.
5. Project Outcomes
•
Learners will have led on designing experiences and will experienced a ‘step change’
in the way the curriculum is delivered
Page 18 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Variety in curriculum delivery will have been developed or adapted to support
flexible learning and preferences.
The Business School will have trialed and evaluated integrative approaches and
shared these with colleagues in the UK and through the Carnegie Institute, USA.
All staff contributing to the six first year modules and students on bursary placements
will have attended sessions and enhanced capacity, knowledge and skills. Teaching
and learning behaviours will show tangible evidence of change with regard to the use
of technology.
Systems available within the University will have been used more effectively and
efficiently than is currently the case to provide, re-purpose and store information for,
and about, learners. The technology will become more integrated into the curriculum
and be an integral part of learning material delivery and assessment. Evaluation data
from the project will inform future strategy and investment in IT infrastructure to
ensure continued interoperability.
Students will have engaged with students through learning with peers, directly
supporting peers and by playing a part in the evaluation phase.
International students will have improved satisfaction levels.
Improved understanding at senior management level; Evidence of action through
financial support and strategic planning for future investment in technology enhanced
learning.
Report on best use of technology for learning, and action plan for implementation.
Project deliverables made available to the wider community through dissemination
activities, project website and project blog.
6. Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder
Business School Students
Business School Bursary
Students
Teaching Fellows
Head of School
Interest / stake
Opportunity to engage with a more
dynamic teaching and learning
environment; opportunity to develop
employability skills derived from
engagement with technology-enhanced
modules.
Enhanced employability; opportunity to
work outside traditional student
boundaries; opportunity to influence
teaching and learning in the Business
School.
Opportunity for personal and professional
development; opportunity to streamline
academic administration; opportunity to
transform teaching.
Furthering of strategic aims for
introducing more technology enhanced
learning to the School.
Page 19 of 60
Importance
High
High
High
High
Version: 1.3
th
School Manager
Opportunity to investigate new process for
administration and management of large
cohorts of students.
School Student Services Manager Furthering Business School student
and other administrative staff
support policies to incorporate technology
enhanced learning; opportunity to
investigate ways to streamline support and
assessment processes.
Other Business School teaching
Opportunity to incorporate more
staff
technology into teaching using bestpractice models developed through the
project.
The Business School
Opportunity to try higher-risk strategies
for engagement, assessment and
interactivity in a heavily supported
manner in order to transform curriculum
delivery.
Other UoE Schools
Lower risk opportunities for investigating
curriculum transformation using tried and
tested methods.
Education Enhancement Unit
Opportunity to further demonstrate
breadth and depth of skill sets within the
unit and raise profile across the
University.
Head of Academic Services
Opportunity to showcase work being
undertaken in the Education Enhancement
Unit.
UoE e-Learning Advisors and
Opportunities for dialogue, collaboration
Education Technologists
and sharing of good practice.
National HE Community
Awareness of project; opportunities for
sharing of good practice, dialogue and
collaboration.
Other JISC Projects
Lessons learned
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
7. Risk Analysis
Risk 1-5 (5=high)
Recruitment and
retention of new
staff
Proba Seve
bility -rity
2
4
Score Contingency
plans
/
Action
to
PxS
prevent/manage risk
8
Staff who have worked on previous development
projects are likely to be available. Known
candidates will be addressed. Efficient project
management and induction to ensure retention of
staff.
Page 20 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Collaboration
between School
and Project proves
difficult
Teaching Fellow
(TF) resistance to
change
1
5
5
1
5
5
Academic Staff
resistance
3
3
9
2
3
6
1
4
4
Senior
management
engagement is
weak
Barriers to the use
of technology
1
5
5
1
4
4
Technology
unsuitable for the
kinds of
communication
identified in
project
2
3
6
Students resistance
to changes
Project aims and
objectives not met
Strong links have already been established and
the School strongly supports the proposals.
Sensitive re-negotiation would be adopted;
different staff might take on key roles.
Care will be taken in explaining involvement in
this project, purposes, and expectations to this
group of staff; project will be highly
collaborative between Business School staff,
Education Enhancement and students.
The project team will work carefully to create an
ethos of collaboration and support rather than
centralised enforcement.
Project will provide direct support to academics
and teaching fellows; bursary students will be
employed to engage with wider student groups;
students will be kept informed of project
progress.
Strong project management from identified team
and emphasis on collaboration with the Business
School should ensure this is avoided.
The known support of the DVC, Heads of
Academic Services and Education Enhancement
will firmly drive the project and ensure
continued high-level participation.
Effective project management: change needs to
be seen in the long term as well as over the
course of this project; technology will be
supported for duration and after project.
Review technology for technical, managerial or
pedagogic difficulties and decide whether to
continue. Use second semester pilot phase to
highlight problems before implementation in the
following academic year.
8. Standards
Technical standards relating to existing tools and technologies the project will employ:
Name of standard or
specification
WORD2003 & PDF
Version
XHTML
CSS
1.1
2.1
Notes
Documents hosted on the Integrate blog and
website will be in WORD and PDF format
Page 21 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
JPEG
Multimedia – FLASH
1.02
IMS Content Packaging
1.1.3
Dublin Core / Qualified
Dublin Core
Scanned images capture
resolution
1.1
SMS
Mp3
Advanced Profile MPEG-4
AVI
Any images used will conform to JPEG standards
Any multimedia content produced will use
multimedia standards based on FLASH
Whilst not a core part of the project, any e-learning
materials produced will be compliant to IMS
standards
Any materials produced will have metadata
conforming to Dublin Core standards
A default capture resolution of 600DPI will be
employed and varied as appropriate for
larger/smaller objects
Text messaging will use the SMS protocol
prevalent in GSM communications
Audio files for dissemination will be in mp3
format
Videos collected from FLIP cameras will be in
AVI format
9. Technical Development
The Integrate project is investigating the processes surrounding and application of a range of
technologies. The technologies we have identified for use so far have been chosen by merit
based upon their potential to fulfil a particular need. The needs have for the most part been
identified by the academics and teaching fellows working with Integrate. Technologies are
selected mainly for their fitness for purpose – will they do what we want? Selecting the right
technology in some ways could mean the difference between a successful pilot, and therefore
future, in the Business School and an expensive failure, both in terms of staff time taken to
investigate use and potentially in terms of money wasting in buying a tool or service. Part of
the decision making process relies upon experiences in the e-learning team, but also on the
experiences of other people external to the University. In this latter aspect we hope to avoid
wild goose chases for tools or services that either simply don’t work or are in some way
inferior to other similar tools and services. After researching effectiveness the Integrate
project will then make a decision as to whether or not to undertake a trial and ascertain
effectiveness in the Business School setting.
The technologies identified so far include the following:
SMS: Student feedback and participation will be elicited using vie mobile phone technology.
Students will use their own handsets to text responses to a PAYG number. The messages can
then be manipulated in Excel to provide graphical representations of results or put into a
word cloud generator such as Wordle to create visual representations. Readily available
technologies will be used: SMS; MS Excel; Nokia PC Suite; Bluetooth; web-based word
cloud generators. Related projects: Kastanet, WALES
Page 22 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
ARS: Student feedback and participation will be elicited using an audience response system
(Turning Point). The ARS kit is the result of a successful bid to the University’s
Development and Alumni Relations Office and will see 200 handsets being made available to
the Business School. Many of the modules in the Integrate project have cohorts greater than
200 so investigation will concentrate on smaller modules, or smaller group sessions (tutorials,
help classes) of the larger modules.
Echo360: Echo is a lecture capture and streaming system used in three large lecture theatres
across the University. These theatres are frequently used by Business School modules due to
their large cohorts. Captured lectures are stored centrally and hyperlinks to media are
provided through WebCT courses for students to review in their own time.
Flip video: Students can use handheld video recorders to capture presentations, vodcasts and
different aspects of their student lives. The videos can then be uploaded to WebCT for
sharing. Recorders can also be used in student projects aimed at capturing different elements
of the student experience.
Tablet PC: This will be trialled in maths-based modules as a way of capturing mathematical
explanations. Screen captures can they be shared through WebCT. We will be working
towards using the Tablet with Echo in order that audio and video can be captured along with
the explanations.
WebCT: Work will be undertaken to make better use of the tools available through WebCT.
Second Life: Potential uses of SL will be explored in a constrained way in order to ascertain
its potential for the Business School. A potential application might be accessing keynote
speakers, although the benefit of SL over videoconferencing is as yet unclear.
CAA: Integrate is looking to pilot Assessment21’s ABC tool with the hope of gaining
marking efficiencies – ABC allows markers to work question by question rather than script
by script. Assessment21 believe this leads to better consistency in marking and also saves
time.
e-PDP: The University’s bespoke e-PDP system will be used across all modules for students
to record reflections and progress in all areas of their studies. Related projects: Leap2a
As cohorts change and different agendas come to the fore, the Integrate project will look to
incorporate and support other technologies based upon user needs. Also, as the student
projects get underway (WP6 Students Supporting Staff and Students) more technologies may
need to be incorporated into the project and investigated and supported by the central team.
Examples might include Ning for peer to peer social networking, Twitter, RFID for
attendance monitoring, Wikis, blogs and VOIP as a method of collecting feedback. The wellsupported nature of the Integrate project (supported by two dedicated members of project
team and a group of bursary students) allows the potential for a great deal of flexibility in the
work undertaken by the project and allows for a broader scope than would be usual for a
project of this size.
Page 23 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
10. Intellectual Property Rights
Project deliverables will be freely available to the JISC community and IPR for project
deliverables will rest with JISC. Any information gathered during the course of the study
(and not already in the public domain) will become the property of HEFCE on behalf of
JISC.
IPR for any research papers and journal articles, which draw on project findings but are not in
themselves project deliverables, will rest with authors and their institutions as appropriate.
IPR advice will be sought from JISC Legal and it is envisaged the Web2Rights project could
also be of use.
Project Resources
11. Project Partners
The project is being wholly run by the University of Exeter.
12. Project Management
Project Steering Group
(PSG)
Project Working Group
(PWG)
Project
Management
Group
(PMG)
Whole Group
Student Liaison
Group
Project Evaluation
Group
Other School Staff
Figure 2 – Project Management Structure
Page 24 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
•
The Project Steering Group (PSG) will advise on the direction and implementation of
the project, monitor project progress and adherence to the project plan and consider
and recommend strategies for the continuation and development of project initiatives
after the life of the project. The steering group will comprise senior institutional
managers, the student-chair of the Staff Student Liaison Committee, members of the
team delivering the project and external consultants.
•
The Project Working Group (PWG), internal to the Education Enhancement Unit and
led by the Principal Investigator and Project Manager, has oversight of the day to day
running of the project and will liaise regularly with Whole Group, the Student Liaison
Group, the Project Evaluation Group and Other School Staff (e.g. other academics
and teaching staff, school managers, school administrators).
o Whole Group comprises members of PWG, Academics and Teaching Fellows
leading the Integrate pilot modules and other members of Business School
staff close to the project.
o Student Liaison Group comprises members of the Staff Student Liaison
Committee (SSLC) and bursary students.
o Project Evaluation Group comprises members of all other groups (except
Project Steering group) and will advise on matters regarding project
evaluation.
o Other School Staff is made up of any other members of Business School staff
who have an interest in the project.
•
The Project Management Group (PMG) will have oversight of School-level issues,
both administrative and managerial, within and surrounding the project.
Name
Liz Dunne
Ali Press
Role
Integrate
in Time
Previous experience
allocated to
project
Principal
20%
Education Enhancement’s Head of Project
Investigator
Development at the University of Exeter.
(PI)
Her career over 30 years has been devoted
to the promotion of innovation, change
and strategic development in education.
She has coordinated and directed many
major
research,
development
and
evaluation projects on aspects of learning
and teaching of national interest, most
recently as director of a Pathfinder project
on video-conferencing.
Project
100%
e-Learning
Advisor.
Successful
Manager (PM)
involvement in TEL projects for over 6
years and supporting colleagues’ use of
ICT and ILT for over 10 years.
Page 25 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Laura Taylor
Nick Birbeck
Matt Newcombe
Sue Burkill
Tom Browne
Juliette Stephenson
Education
Technologist
(ET)
Co-Investigator
(CO1)
Co-Investigator
(CO2)
Co-Investigator
(CO3)
Co-Investigator
(CO4)
Key Business
School
Link
(OS1)
100%
Education Technologist
5%
e-Learning Advisor
5%
Head of e-Learning
5%
Head of Education Enhancement
5%
Education Research & Evaluation Advisor
5%
Senior Teaching Fellow
Training needs will be addressed as the project progresses and sourced either internally or
externally depending on need.
13. Programme Support
Advice and guidance will be sought from the Programme Manager and JISC services as
required. Members of the project team will attend programme meetings and other JISC
events as required. Team members have been involved in a number of other projects and
have access to great deal of knowledge and expertise in the TEL community. Support will
also be sought through the project cluster Integrate has been assigned to.
14. Budget
The larger than expected pay settlement in October 2008 has meant the cost of the two posts
funded by the Integrate project are higher than forecast. However, this cost has been offset
largely by the Education Technologist for the project not commencing in post until 1st
January 2009 (i.e. two months later than the project start).
See Appendix A for detailed budget.
Detailed Project Planning
15. Workpackages
See Appendix B
Page 26 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
16. Evaluation Plan
There will be systematic and rigorous evaluation continuing throughout the project. In the
pilot phase this will be used to inform the future implementation stage. Throughout the
implementation phase evaluation will be used as a continuous cycle to inform practice and
improve development - from project management to working with technology - and for report
writing, and dissemination across the University and beyond. It will address evaluation of
processes as well as outputs/outcomes in order to inform future developmental work, and will
depend on a merging of both quantitative and qualitative data to give the fullest picture
possible. This kind of process-based evaluation intrinsically reviews not only the measured
effectiveness of any change or development but, possibly more importantly, the reasons for
success or failure, whether to do with the technology per se or the delivery and pedagogy
surrounding its use. Evaluation will be undertaken by the two full-time project members in
collaboration with the PI, though this will be supported by staff and, in particular, by student
involvement in data-collection, as agreed on an ongoing basis.
Timing
WP1
Throughou
t the
project
Factor to Evaluate
Questions to
Address
Project management Have discussions/
being achieved as in meetings (formal
descriptions, from
and informal) been
staff and technology achieved as
development to
outlined?
control of finances – To what extent have
at each level from
they been effective?
everyday activity to
Steering group.
Method(s)
Measure of Success
Quantitative: counts
of how many
contacts/ meetings/
workshops/ other
sessions organised,
etc. and for what
purpose.
Qualitative: review
of processes/
outcomes through
stakeholder
feedback/internal
project review;
notes and actions
from meetings.
Effectiveness
evident in processes,
progress and
outcomes of project.
Project to budget.
Page 27 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
WP2
Initially
from Nov
08 to Feb
09;
continuing
throughout
the project
Engagement of
stakeholders,
especially Business
School/ INTO staff,
especially of the
project group,
individually and as a
team, initially and
on a continued
basis.
Have efforts/
strategies to engage
staff been
appropriate for the
context? Have all
appropriate staff
engaged at an
appropriate level?
What has been the
impact of this
engagement
WP2
Gathering and
recording of internal
data to inform
project development
(benchmarking,
surveys, informal
interviews etc, as
detailed in project
plan) to provide a
background report
on prior technology
use in the Business
School and a
baseline description
of first year
curriculum delivery.
Data on student
technology use and
interests via survey
written for purpose.
Has appropriate
documentation been
traced, analysed,
succinctly written
up?
Is the description in
the report robust
enough to provide a
baseline for
prompting action
and against which to
evaluate change?
Should any survey
questions be
changed/ additional
questions
necessary? Is the
design fit for
purpose/ for re-use?
Nov 08 to
end Feb 09
Some
repeated
09-10
of numbers
attending sessions/
meetings, numbers
working with new
technologies.
Numbers involved
in dissemination
within School or
beyond.
Qualitative: Internal
project review of
processes and
outcomes, feedback
from staff
(academic/ teaching
fellows/ admin).
of papers/surveys,
etc covered.
Qualitative: review
of processes and
outcomes.
Evidence of
engagement, and
quality of
engagement
observable through
individual/group
engagement/
changes in practice/
increased and
enhanced
technology use.
Report provides a
detailed background to the
project, is perceived
as interesting/
useful by the
Business School;
Qualitative:
and can be built on
feedback from staff to inform the future
and students through shape of project.
informal discussions Enough
with staff/SSLCs
appropriately
completed survey
returns to give a
representative
sample. Questions
provide meaningful/
useful results.
Page 28 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
WP2
To July 09
July-Oct
2010
WP2
WP3
Especially
Nov-Feb
2009
WP3
Especially
Jan-Feb
09, but
ongoing as
appropriate
WP3
Review of literature
to cover technology
use and
development,
internationalisation,
large numbers
Weblog and website
dissemination
Quality, interest,
usefulness
Understanding of
key challenges that
underpin the project
Articulation of
desired changes to
produce a plan of
action
Addressing aims
and objectives
Has the literature
base been
appropriately
covered – what’s
missing?
Has the literature
review been written
up succinctly and
appropriately so that
links with the
actions within the
project are apparent
or explicit.
To what extent is
this weblog/site
publicised/ viewed
by others. How
useful is it and to
which audiences?
What should be
included? Is it
accessible?
Have key challenges
been appropriately
identified - for all
stakeholders? Is
revision needed?
Have changes been
articulated/ by
whom?
To what extent is
there built-in
flexibility? Is
revision needed?
Have all the aims
and objectives been
appropriately
covered – what’s
missing/why? Is
revision needed?
What has been the
quality of processes
and outcomes?
Qualitative:
informal feedback
from interested
parties
Quantitative:
measurement of
‘hits’.
Qualitative:
feedback through
informal discussion,
final survey.
Qualitative:
accounts/
descriptions from
staff/students, from
discussions/focus
groups/ final survey.
Qualitative: initial
articulation found to
be
sound/appropriate
and hence a solid
underpinning to
action plan.
Quantitative:
Matching of aims
and objectives to
outcomes. How
much/ what else is
achieved?
Qualitative: review
of quality of
processes/ outcomes
through stakeholder
feedback/ internal
project review/ final
survey.
Page 29 of 60
Report provides an
effective and
relevant background to the
project, is perceived
as interesting/ useful
by the Business
School and beyond;
and is used to
underpin project
developments and
clarify expectations
and outcomes.
Evidence of use and
reported interest/
impact.
Evidence in ways of
working/feedback
that challenges have
been understood and
have potential for
change.
Evidence in ways of
working/feedback
that changes have
been understood and
have potential for
action.
Evidence of uptake
by staff/students.
Changes in the
baseline.
Observed and
reported evidence of
impact on learning/
management.
Version: 1.3
th
WP3
Plan of action
demonstrating
technological
solutions
Induction and
professional
development
WP4
At intervals programme to
from March ensure staff
09 to Sept
development in
2010
technology
Implementing
technologies: to
From
Jan include established
09 - June through to
2010
innovative
WP5
-Improving WebCT
use
-Web 2.-CAA/online
submission/
marking/ feedback
-Engagement of
large lecture
audiences
-Reusable learning
objects
-Pastoral care and
support
-Plagiarism and
academic honesty
How useful/
effective/ realistic
has this plan been?
In what ways has it
changed/
developed?
Quantitative: How
much of the plan is
implemented?
Qualitative: review
of quality of
processes/ outcomes
through stakeholder
feedback/ internal
project review/ final
survey.
How was face-toQuantitative:
face training
numbers
received? Was it
attending/satisfied.
appropriately
Numbers of
tailored? What was
Business School
its impact on
staff who become
technology use? Has involved as
it been possible to
‘trainers’/disseminat
capture an outline
ors of experience.
and resources for a
Qualitative: written/
reusable training
verbal feedback
package.
from participants.
Has this technology Quantitative:
been used? To what numbers to show
extent and in which what and who by –
modules? To what
staff/students?
effect?
Measures of impact
may be possible time savings, cost
savings (or lack of
increase with large
cohorts), increased
effectiveness/
satisfaction.
Qualitative:
feedback from staff/
students via
informal
discussions/ focus
Page 30 of 60
Evidence through
experience that plan
is useable/
workable/ adaptable
by different parties.
Evidence of
satisfaction levels
with training/
implementation of
change as an
outcome.
Evidence of uptake
by staff/students.
Changes in the
baseline.
Observed and
impact on learning/
management.
Version: 1.3
th
WP5
WP6
WP6
Conceptualising and
embedding to
provide an
integrative learning
experience
Making use of
student bursaries to
provide e-learning
champions
Has ‘integrative’
been adequately
conceptualised?
What constitutes an
integrative
experience for
students? Has this
been achieved?
Was a bursary an
effective means for
engaging students?
What was its impact
in recruitment of
students to project/
maintaining interest
and support? Should
it be repeated? How
effective are
students in this role?
What has been
achieved that could
not be achieved by
staff/ non-bursary
students?
Student involvement To what extent and
in supporting project in what ways have
aims
students supported
-as mentors/buddies project aims. How
-developing support effectively?
through FEELE
-assisting with online support/tutoring
- assisting with
support for
international
students
Quantitative: How
many staff/students
feel that learning
has been integrated?
Qualitative:
students via
informal
discussions/ focus
Qualitative:
feedback through
individual
discussions/focus
groups.
Evidence of change
in practice with
staff/students.
Changes in the
baseline.
Observed and
impact on learning/
management/
technology.
Evidence of change
in practice with
staff/students.
Changes in the
baseline.
Observed and
impact on learning/
management/
technology.
Qualitative;
feedback through
individual
discussions/focus
groups.
Evidence of uptake
by staff/students.
Changes in the
baseline.
Observed and
impact on learning/
management/
technology.
Page 31 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Ongoing evaluation
WP7
WP8
WP8
Dissemination
(detailed in 18.)
To what extent is
the predicted scale
of evaluation
realistic/ effective?
Should it be
changed? Is the
evaluative process
supporting change?
What is it possible
to measure? What
should be
measured? Who can
contribute to
evaluative processes
and in what ways?
Have the intended
audiences been
reached? Are these
the most appropriate
targets? Who should
do the
dissemination?
Which stakeholders
should be actively
involved in the
process?
Embedding new
To what extent has
practices/sustainabili the project become
ty
owned by the
Business School in
general, by groups
of staff, by
individuals? In what
ways has Education
Enhancement been
able to support
embedding more
broadly than the
business School?
How has
sustainability been
addressed
throughout the
project?
Qualitative: Internal
project review of
processes and
outcomes, feedback
from staff
(academic/ teaching
fellows/ admin).
Evidence that
evaluation is
capturing the
essence of what is
being achieved and
with what impact
(or not).
Quantitative:
amount of
dissemination
(workshops,
presentations,
articles/ papers) to
which audiences, for
what purposes.
Qualitative:
Evidence of a
variety of forms of
dissemination from
conference
presentations/
papers, journal
articles, workshops,
training sessions.
Involvement of
project staff/
Business School
staff/ students
Evidence of many
forms of
embedding/
sustainable
activities.
Involvement of
project staff/
Business School
staff/ students.
Quantitative:
numbers to show
what and who by –
staff/students/other
Schools/beyond?
Qualitative:
students via
informal
discussions/ focus
Page 32 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Across all
packages
Collaboration with
academic and other
staff/SSLCs and
students/JISC
How effective has
collaboration been?
Have appropriate
opportunities been
identified? eg.
Across the school,
across the
university, with
JISC Curriculum
Design, JISC
services and project
cluster?
Quantitative:
numbers to show
what collaboration
and who by – staff/
students/other
Schools/ beyond?
Qualitative:
students via
informal
discussions/ focus
Evidence of
collaboration
throughout the
project and accounts
of impact.
17. Quality Plan
The quality plan will have a strong, ongoing link to the evaluation plan.
Overall Quality Plan
Timing
Quality criteria
As
required
Best practice for
tools and
processes
Ongoing
and
culminating in
final
report
Evaluation that
will analyse
which areas of the
project have been
more successful
and which have
been less
successful, and
highlight key
challenges in
adoption.
QA method(s) Evidence of
compliance
Analysis of
User uptake;
experiences;
user feedback;
analysis of
relative ease of
fitness for
use
purpose of
technologies
Analysis of
Evaluation
project
report
Quality
responsibilities
All
PM, PI, CO1-4
Page 33 of 60
Quality tools
None
Questionnaires
; focus group
questions;
interview
questions
Version: 1.3
th
During
each
semester
Evaluation of
learners’
experiences
Analysis of
experience
Regularly
Review of
progress with
module leaders
Feedback and
analysis
As
required
When
appropriat
e
Fitness
purpose
Reports
publication
for User activity
for Peer review
Reports for
blog and
website;
inclusion in
interim and
final reports.
Reports for
blog and
website;
inclusion in
interim and
final reports.
Adoption by
users
Publication
PM, PI, CO1-4,
OS1-2
Questionnaires
focus group
questions;
interview
questions
PM, ET
Questionnaires
focus group
questions;
interview
questions
PM, ET
None
PM, PI, CO1-4, None
OS1-2
Output Specific Quality Plan
Output:
WP1 - A well-managed project that satisfies the Aims and Objectives by providing effective change
within the Business School and understandings that benefit the institution and the wider community.
Timing
Quality criteria
QA method(s) Evidence of Quality
Quality tools
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Adherence to
Analysis of
Workpackage PM
none
project plan
project;
milestones are
reporting of
hit; reports
progress to
produced on
project
time
management
groups
Output:
WP2 - A review report detailing current practices in curriculum delivery and use of technology in the
Business School, to serve as a baseline for ongoing change and evaluation of development
Timing
Quality criteria
Quality tools
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Report accepted
Review of
Report is
PM
none
by internal
report by
signed off by
stakeholders as an internal
all
accurate picture
stakeholders
stakeholders
of current
practice.
Page 34 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Output:
WP2 - An outline of literature that relates to and can specifically inform this project
Timing
Quality criteria
compliance
responsibilities
By Oct
Literature
Literature
Literature
PM, PI, ET,
2010
collection
collection
collection is
CO1-4
encompasses best (del.icio.us)
seen as
practice in
put together by informative
technology
a wide set of
and useful by
enhanced learning project
project
(TEL).
participants;
stakeholders.
literature
collection
informed by
leading figures
in TEL field.
Output:
WP2 – Website
Timing
Quality criteria
Ongoing;
as appropriate
Website informs
wider community
about Integrate’s
aims, objectives
and achievements
to date; Website
hosts project
outputs as and
when they
become available;
Output:
WP2 - Blog
Timing
Quality criteria
Ongoing
Blog provides an
open and
informative
record of project
activities to
interested parties.
compliance
responsibilities
User testing;
User testing
All
and feedback
suggests
website is fit
for purpose
compliance
responsibilities
Blog postings Blog postings All
made by team are cited or
members are
Twittered
reviewed by
about by
other team
readers;
members;
Page 35 of 60
Quality tools
none
Quality tools
Questionnaire
Quality tools
none
Version: 1.3
th
Output:
WP3 - A plan of action demonstrating technological solutions for implementing change and providing
a plan of delivery, dependent on the findings of the review above
Timing
Quality criteria
Quality tools
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing; Technological
Stakeholders
Technological All
Questionnaire
as apsolutions are fit
are surveyed
solutions are
propriate
for purpose and
using
used by
selected to
questionnaires; academics,
address particular further focus
teaching
areas of practice
groups and
fellows and
interviews are students and
held
surveying of
all groups
indicates their
usefulness
Output:
WP3 - An evaluation plan to show how outcomes will be evaluated against the initial review and the
identified challenge(s).
Timing
Quality criteria
QA method(s) Evidence of
Quality
Quality tools
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Plan evaluates
Project
Project
PM, PI
none
each output of the evaluation will Evaluation
project in an
be undertaken Group sign off
appropriate
in consultation evaluation
manner
with the
plan
Project
Evaluation
Group
Output:
WP4 - A report on the training activities undertaken, their reception and impact
Timing
Quality criteria
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Report accurately Feedback will Feedback is
PM, PI, ET
details the
be sought from included in the
training activities all training
report
undertaken, their
activities
reception and
their impact
Page 36 of 60
Quality tools
Training
activity
feedback
form
Version: 1.3
th
Output:
WP4 - An outline, and resources, for a training package that could be used in different contexts in the
University and more widely
Timing
Quality criteria
Quality tools
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Based on
Feedback from Final training
PM, PI, ET
Training
feedback from
training
packages and
activity
training
sessions
resources are
feedback
undertaken,
undertaken
fit for purpose
form
lesson plans and
will inform as
resources will be
to their fitness
made available on for purpose –
the project
adjustments
website so
will be made
training activities to
can be
accommodate
successfully
feedback
replicated
Output:
WP5 - A series of case-studies detailing the outcomes of the identified pilots
Timing
Quality criteria
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Case studies
Case studies
Case studies
All
accurately reflect will draw upon are felt by all
what happened,
all available
involved
with whom and
evaluation
stakeholders to
how everyone felt sources and an accurately
about it
account of
represent what
actual practice happened
Output:
WP6 - A report focusing on the views and experiences of students
Timing
Quality criteria
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Report accurately Report will
Students and
All
reflects what
draw upon all stakeholders
happened, with
available
sign off report
whom and how
evaluation
as an accurate
everyone felt
sources and an account of
about it
account of
what took
actual practice place
Page 37 of 60
Quality tools
All
evaluation
tools
Quality tools
none
Version: 1.3
th
Output:
WP6 - Student-led case-book of technology practices they appreciate, and why
Timing
Quality criteria
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Case-book
Students will
Students will
PM, PI, ET,
accurately reflects decide how to produce own
CO1-4
students’ opinions ensure their
quality
of technology
case-book
criteria; casemeets their
book will
quality criteria adhere to these
criteria
Output:
WP6 - Student-made video
Timing
Quality criteria
Ongoing
Students will
decide on quality
criteria with
guidance from the
project team
compliance
responsibilities
All
Quality tools
Students’
quality
criteria
Quality tools
Output:
WP7 - Regular updates to the University’s Education Strategy Group (so as to impact upon future
recommendations for policy and strategy)
Timing
Quality criteria
Quality tools
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Updates
Stakeholders
Stakeholders
All
All
accurately reflect are involved in sign off
evaluation
activity of the
producing and updates to be
tools
project.
presenting
given to
updates
Education
Strategy
Group
Page 38 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Output:
WP7 - Ongoing evaluation
Timing
Quality criteria
Ongoing
Evaluation
activities conform
to evaluation plan
compliance
responsibilities
Project
Project
All
evaluation will Evaluation
be undertaken Group agree
in consultation evaluation
with the
activities
Project
conform to
Evaluation
evaluation
Group
plan
Output:
WP8 - Interim and final reports
Timing
Quality criteria
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Reports paint
Presentation to Stakeholders
PM
accurate picture
stakeholders
sign off
of project
reports for
activities;
publication
Output:
WP8 – Dissemination activities
Timing
Quality criteria
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Message given by Feedback will Feedback
PM
project accurately be elicited
gathered from
reflects project
from
dissemination
activities and is of dissemination activities
benefit to HE
activities;
(verbal and
community
types of
written)
internally and
feedback will
externally
be appropriate
to audience
(e.g. internal
audiences can
be asked to fill
in feedback
forms)
Page 39 of 60
Quality tools
All
evaluation
tools
Quality tools
none
Quality tools
Training
activity
feedback
forms
Version: 1.3
th
Output:
WP9 - Evidence of sustainability within University strategies
Timing
Quality criteria
compliance
responsibilities
Ongoing
Updates and
Exit and
Feedback from PM, PI
findings from the Sustainability Head of eIntegrate project
Group will
Learning and
will have
exert influence Head of
influenced School at the
Education
and University
appropriate
Enhancement
TEL policies
level in order
Unit that
once findings
and benefits of
project
activities are
clear
Output:
WP10 – Final evaluation
Timing
Quality criteria
By
October
2010
Outputs described
above provide a
valuable
contribution to
HE community
compliance
responsibilities
Stakeholders
Use of
All
and Project
successful
Evaluation
technologies
Group will
embedded
analyse and
within
sign off all
Business
project outputs School and are
permeating to
other Schools;
dissemination
of activities
yields positive
feedback
Quality tools
None
Quality tools
All
evaluation
tools
18. Dissemination Plan
Dissemination will be undertaken both by the project team in Education Enhancement and by
members of Business School staff and students. Dissemination will include conventional
paper-based and face to face interaction, as well as audio, video and student-designed
feedback.
Page 40 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Timing
Dissemination
Activity
Page on JISC
website
Blog created
Audience
Purpose
Key Message
JISC community
Project perspective
Website in
University of
Exeter Domain
Bursary students to
work with other
students and staff
Internal and external
education community
Project
dissemination
Awareness raising
and progress
reporting
Project
dissemination
University
community; Students
Guild
Awareness raising
and sharing
experiences
May 2009
Programme
Meeting
JISC community;
other Delivery
projects
Awareness raising
and sharing
experience
Oct 2009
Programme
Meeting
JISC community;
other Delivery
projects
Awareness raising
and sharing
experience
May 2010
Programme
Meeting
JISC community;
other Delivery
projects
Awareness raising
and sharing
experience
Oct 2010
Programme
Meeting
JISC community;
other Delivery
projects
Awareness raising
and sharing
experience
Monthly
Project Working
Group meetings
Project colleagues
What we did, with
whom and what we
found; how to
become involved
What we did, with
whom and what we
found; how we are
progressing
What we did, with
whom and what we
found; how we are
progressing
What we did, with
whom and what we
found; how we are
progressing
What we did, with
whom and what we
found; how we are
progressing
Awareness raising
and sharing
experiences
Awareness raising
and
sharing
experiences
Awareness raising
and
sharing
experiences
What we did, with
whom and what we
found; how we are
progressing
December
2008
November
2008
Mar 2009
Feb 2009 –
June 2010
Internal and external
education community
Awareness raising
and sharing
experiences
Every other Project
Key Business School Awareness raising
month
management
management links
and
sharing
Group Meetings
experiences
5
times Project
Steering Steering Group
Awareness raising
through
Group meetings
and
sharing
project life
experiences
4
times Meetings
with HE community
Awareness raising
through life project cluster and
and
sharing
of project
critical friend
experiences
Page 41 of 60
Lessons learnt;
project activities
Project activity and
outputs
Version: 1.3
th
As
Updates given at
opportunities bi-monthly
present
Education
Enhancement Unit
meetings
As
Updates given at
opportunities bi-monthly
present
University
Innovations Group
Meetings
As
Presentation of
opportunities papers and case
present
studies
As
Updates in
opportunities University
present
Revolve magazine
As
Presentations to
opportunities Staff Student
present
Liaison
Committees
As
School road shows
opportunities
present
As
Education
opportunities Enhancement
present
dissemination
routes, such as
School road shows
and LTHE extras
As
Through the INTO
opportunities partnership
present
network ideas for
good practice
As
Module Leaders,
opportunities Lecturers and
present
Teaching Follows
to feed back to
HEA subject
centres relevant to
the Business
School
By
Lunchtime
September
seminars,
2009
demonstrations
and reports
Pedagogic and
technical support staff
and trainers,
educational
researchers
University
community
Awareness raising
and sharing
experiences
How we are
progressing
Sharing
experiences
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
Wider education
community nationally
and internationally
University
community
Sharing
experiences
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
How we are
progressing
University
community
Sharing
experiences
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
University
community
Sharing
experiences
Directors of Learning
and teaching in all
academic Schools
Sharing
experiences
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
INTO
Sharing
experiences
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
HEA Subject Centres
Sharing
experiences
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
Administrators
Sharing
experiences
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
Awareness raising
Page 42 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
June 2009
Lunchtime
seminars and
demonstrations
University
community
Awareness raising
and promotion of
TEL
August 2009
Interim report
JISC community
2009 and
2010
Journal Articles:
BJET; IJEL;
Interpersonal
Computing and
Technology
Journal; Journal of
Interactive
Learning Research
(JILR); ALT-J
Interim report
Education
Community
Project
dissemination and
reporting
Sharing
experiences;
project
dissemination
JISC community
April 2010
JISC Conference –
Presentation
Education
Community
Project
dissemination and
reporting
Sharing
experiences
April 2010
Plymouth eLearning
Conference
Hertfordshire
Blended Learning
Conference
ALT-C 2010
Conference
Presentation
Final Report
Education
Community
Sharing
experiences
Education
Community
Sharing
experiences
Education
Community
Sharing
experiences
JISC Community
Online Educa,
Berlin Conference
Presentation
HE Community
Project
dissemination and
reporting
Project
dissemination and
reporting
Feb 2010
June 2010
September
2010
October
2010
December
2010
What we did, what
we found, how
others can get
involved
How we are
progressing
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
How we are
progressing
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
What we did, with
whom and what we
found
19. Exit and Sustainability Plans
As the project lasts for a duration of two years the project will ensure there is sufficient
professional development within the Business School in order for the technologies implemented
to remain in use beyond the life of the project, both by project staff and by others. In addition,
the knowledge and expertise gained by members of the Education Enhancement Unit will be
Page 43 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
shared widely both within the Unit and by the Unit. An Exit and Sustainability Group
comprising a mixture of all project management groups will be tasked with ensuring wider rollout of successful project activities within the Business School. The Exit and Sustainability
Group will be formed during the 2009/10 academic year once pilots of most technologies have
taken place and successful interventions are being embedded. Contacts within the Education
Enhancement Unit, such as School Link Advisers, will be involved in the wider roll-out of
successful activities to other Schools.
Project Outputs
Knowledge and
experience of
technology gained
through the project
Action for Take-up &
Embedding
The value of the changes in
practice explored will have
proven beneficial to the Business
School and permeated into more
modules and programme areas
across the School and beyond.
Website to include all
written reports
Website to remain available to all
for three years after the end of the
project.
A series of case studies
detailing what was done,
by whom, and how
others can do similar
Case studies will form best
practice models and be shared at
School roadshows and technology
seminars across the University.
Case studies will also be
promoted at conferences etc.
Blog detailing project
learning
Blog to remain available to all for
three years after the end of the
project.
Project reports
Promotion through conferences
etc
Action for Exit
All learning will be routinely
incorporated into future practice as a
matter of course, since working
group members belong to a central
unit wherein the role of staff is
continued dissemination, transfer and
embedding of activity.
Website will be maintained or
incorporated into Education
enhancement as part of the
institutional strategy to focus on good
practice.
Some materials to be on Business
School website and maintained for
future use, for example,
induction/buddy materials/videos.
All learning will be routinely
incorporated into future practice both
within the Business School and
across the University. Case studies to
be archived on project website and in
Exeter Research and Institutional
Content (ERIC) repository.
Blog will be maintained or
incorporated into Education
enhancement as part of the
institutional strategy to focus on good
practice.
Archived on website and placed in
ERIC repository
Page 44 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Project Outputs
Why Sustainable
Website
Supported until
2013
Supported until
2013
Blog
Scenarios for Taking Issues to Address
Forward
Maintained by
None
Education Enhancement
Maintained by
None
Education Enhancement
Page 45 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Appendix A. Project Budget
Key
JISC
Contributions
Institutional
Contributions
Directly Incurred Staff (Post,
Grade, No. Hours & % FTE)
April 08 –
March 09
April 09 –
March 10
April 10 –
March 11
TOTAL £
61,594.04
80,536.28
Total Directly Incurred Staff (A)
£35,532.58
£71,065.16
£35,532.58
£142,130.32
Non-Staff
April 08 –
March 09
April 09 –
March 10
April 10 –
March 11
TOTAL £
4,000.00
4,000.00
4,000.00
12,000.00
1,000.00
3,000.00
1,000.00
5,000.00
2,100.00
2,100.00
4,200.00
10,350.00
5,410.00
21,170.00
24 Student Bursaries @£500 –
Student-Supporting-Student
Workplan Phase – 8 Y1, 16 Y2
Consultant Fees – 5 @ £1,000
Dissemination – Attendance at
events £4,000 + printing £200
Travel and expenses -From Exeter
to London to fulfill JISC
requirements of 55 events (Standard
Open Ticket is£179.00; £5.00 per
trip expenses +£110
accommodation) – 15 Y1, 25 Y2, 15
Y3 + 10 events @£500 release time
for Senior Management
Hardware/software (inc VAT) New
workstation x 2 for new members of
directly incurred project staff (2 x
desktop PC (2 x £550.00) x 2; 1 x
networked colour laser jet
printer(£240.00)
Consumables
Total Directly Incurred Non-Staff
(B)
Directly Incurred Total (C)
(A+B=C)
5,410.00
1,340.00
1,340.00
2,500.00
8,000.00
3,500.00
14,000.00
£13,250.00
£29,450.00
£15,010.00
£57,710.00
£48,782.58
£100,515.16
£50,542.58
£199,840.32
Page 46 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Directly Allocated
April 08 –
March 09
April 09 –
Sept 09
April 10 –
March 11
TOTAL £
23,880.01
6,716.25
5,122.78
2,026.50
7,167.48
4,884.42
20,134.07
Estates
Directly Allocated Total (D)
4,180.47
£24,968.40
8,360.94
£41,940.34
4,180.47
£19,744.66
16,721.88
£86,653.40
Indirect Costs (E)
£55,390.87
£110,781.75
£55,390.88
£221,563.50
Total Project Cost (C+D+E)
Amount Requested from JISC
Institutional Contributions
£129,141.85
£48,782.58
£80,359.27
£253,237.25
£100,515.16
£152,722.09
£125,678.13
£50,542.58
£75,135.55
£508,057.23
£199,840.32
£308,216.91
Page 47 of 60
Version: 1.3
th
Appendix B. Detailed Breakdown of Workpackages
Page 48 of 60
Project Acronym: Integrate – The University of Exeter Business School Integrative Technologies Project
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
JISC WORK PACKAGE
2008
WORKPACKAGES
1: Project
Management
2:Review of Current
Practice
3: Understanding the
Challenges
4: Planning
Curriculum
Delivery
5: Piloting and
Implementation
6: Students
Supporting Staff
and Students
7: Ongoing
Evaluation
8: Dissemination
Page 49 of 60
Document title: JISC Work Package
2009
2010
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
N
D
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
S
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
Workpackage and activity
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports in bold)
Earliest start
date
Latest completion
date
Earliest
start date
Latest
completion
date
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables &
reports in bold)
1. Project Management Activities
2. Create & approve JISC Project Plan
3. Create Integrate blog at Exeter
Nov 08
Jan 08
Nov 08
Oct 09
Feb 09
Nov 08
4. Create Integrate website at Exeter
Nov 08
Mar 09
Manage progress on Integrate
Complete JISC Project Plan
Publish Integrate blog in UoE
domain
Publish Integrate website in
Responsibility
Milestone
9: Embedding New
Practice and
Sustainability
10: Final Evaluation
Project start date: 01/11/2008
Project completion date: 31/10/2010
Duration: 24 months
Milestone
Responsibilit
y
YEAR 1
WP1: Project Management
Objective: To ensure effective internal
communications and project success
Page 50 of 60
Document title: JISC work package template
x
PM
PM
PM
PM
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
Earliest start
date
Latest completion
date
5. Provide content for JISC website
Nov 08
Nov 08
6. Set up project teams and meeting
schedules
Nov 08
Dec 08
7. Monitor finance
Oct 08
Oct 10
8. Interim report
9. Interim report
10. Final Report
11. Project closure
Aug 09
Feb 10
Aug 10
Aug 09
Feb 10
Oct 10
Oct 09
12. Ongoing review of literature
Nov 08
Oct 10
13. Review current practice in Business
School
Nov 08
Jan 09
Outputs
UoE domain
Publication of Integrate details
on JISC website
Formation of project groups
(working Group, Management
Group and Steering Group) and
setting of meeting schedules
Keep financial expenditure
within budget
Interim report
Interim report
Final Report
Closure of Integrate project
Responsibility
Milestone
PM
PM; PI; CO1,
CO2, CO3,
CO4
X
PI; PM
X
X
x
x
PM
PM
PM
PI; PM
WP2: Review of Current Practice
Objective: To benchmark current use of
technology in curriculum delivery in the Business
School
Page 51 of 60
Tag cloud in del.ico.us made
available to project blog and
website
Report detailing current
practices in curriculum delivery
All
PM, PI, ET,
CO1, CO2,
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
14. Elicit baseline data from students
Earliest start
date
Latest completion
date
Outputs
Responsibility
Milestone
and use of technology; internal
wiki
Questionnaires completed by
students; analysis of
questionnaires
CO3, CO4
Nov 08
Dec 08
PM, PI
Nov 08
Jan 09
Shared understanding in
Project teams of the key
challenges
PM, PI, ET,
CO1, CO2,
CO3, CO4
Nov 08
Jan 09
Plan of action for training
delivery
PM, LT, CO1
WP3: Understanding the Challenges
Objective: To understand key challenges
facing the Business School from the
perspective of module leaders
15. Exploring and recording the challenges
faced by the Business School
WP4: Planning Curriculum Delivery
Objective: To ensure technological
interventions are understood and can be
applied appropriately
16. Discussion with Module Leaders to elicit
comfort with technology
Page 52 of 60
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
17. Deliver training based upon needs
18. Determine which technologies would
alleviate School challenges
Earliest start
date
Latest completion
date
Outputs
Responsibility
Milestone
Jan 09
Nov 08
Oct 10
Feb 09
Appropriately trained staff
Schedule of technologies to be
piloted in each module
PM, ET
PM, PI, ET,
CO1, CO2
Jan 09
Dec 09
Case Study
Student created podcasts
PM, ET, OS2,
BS
Jan 09
Dec 09
Case Study
PM, ET, OS2,
BS
WP5: Piloting and Implementation
Objective: To trial technologies aimed at
transforming curriculum technology in live
module teaching
19. BEE1001 – Principles of Economics (core)
19.1.
Personal response systems
19.2.
Attendance monitoring
19.3.
Lecture capture/streaming
19.4.
Assessment marking overlays
19.5.
Secondlife?
19.6.
How I Learn podcasts
20. BEE1025 – Statistics for Business and
Management (core)
20.1.
Formative CAA - MCQs in VLE
20.2.
Summative assessments
submitted through Turnitin
20.3.
e-feedback (vodcast) using
captive through VLE?
20.4.
Individual feedback through
VLE
Page 53 of 60
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
20.5.
Student to student platform
20.6.
21. BEM1007 – Theory of Management (core)
21.1.
21.2.
Streaming media in tutorials
21.3.
Improved resources
21.4.
CAA - VLE MCQs
21.5.
22. BEA1006/7 - Accounting 1/2 (core)
22.1.
Textbook quizzes (online)
22.2.
CAA - VLE MCQs
22.3.
22.4.
23. BEE1024 – Mathematics for Economists
(core)
23.1.
Personal response systems
23.2.
SMS
23.3.
WebCT repository
23.4.
Videoed tutorials
23.5.
23.6.
Use of tablet PC
23.7.
24. BEE1023 – Introduction to Econometrics
(core)
24.1.
Summative CAA - MCQs in VLE
24.2.
25. BEMM108 - Entrepreneurship: New
Page 54 of 60
Earliest start
date
Latest completion
date
Outputs
Responsibility
Milestone
Jan 09
Dec 09
Case Study
PM, ET, OS2,
BS
Jan 09
Dec 09
Case Study
PM, ET, OS2,
BS
Jan 09
Dec 09
Case Study
PM, ET, OS1,
BS
Jan 09
Dec 09
Case Study
PM, ET, OS2,
BS
Jan 09
Apr 09
Case study
PM, ET, OS2
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
Venture Development (extra)
25.1.
Summative CAA using MCQ and
short answer questions Assessment21
26. BEE1015 – Philosophy of Economics
(extra)
26.1.
Personal response system
27. BEAM034 – Corporate Finance (extra)
27.1.
Game-based learning
28. International Students and INTO
28.1.
Capture videos for induction
29. Distance (learners and guest lecturers)
29.1.
Use of Skype and/or Adobe
Connect to join groups separated by time
and distance
Earliest start
date
Latest completion
date
Outputs
Responsibility
Milestone
Jan 09
Dec 09
Further evidence of use of
response systems
PM, ET, OS1
Jan 09
Dec 09
Case study
PM, ET, OS2
Jan 09
Jun 09
Student-created video content
Jan 09
Dec 09
Proof of concept study for
Business School
PM, ET, OS1,
OS2
PM, ET, OS2
30. Employ 8 students for 2008/09
31. Student induction
Jan 09
Feb 09
Feb 09
32. Student engagement with Business
Feb 09
Jun 09
8 employed students
Students ready to engage with
school
Students lead on areas
WP 6: Students Supporting Staff and Students
Objective: 24 first and second year
students will be offered bursaries for
undertaking an amount of project
directed work
Page 55 of 60
PM, PI, ET
PM, ET
PM, ET, BS
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
School
33. Employ 16 students for 2009/10
34. Student induction
Earliest start
date
Latest completion
date
Outputs
identified in WP description
16 employed students
Students ready to engage with
school
Students lead on areas
identified in WP description
Sept 09
Oct 09
Oct 09
Oct 09
Jun 10
36. Discussion with project stakeholders to
ascertain what they want from project
evaluation
37. Engagement, observation and support of
staff
Jan 09
Mar 09
38. Engagement, observation and support of
students
39. Student focus groups and short
interviews
Dec 09
Jun 10
Formal and informal feedback
Feb 09
Jun 10
Formal feedback
40. Gathering of internal data
Nov 08
Feb 09
41. Review of literature
Nov 08
Oct 10
Report providing a detailed
background to the project
Literature review
35. Student engagement with Business
School
Responsibility
Milestone
PM, PI, ET
PM, ET
PM, ET, BS
WP 7: Ongoing Evaluation
Objective: To regularly review and
evaluate the project
Page 56 of 60
Dec 09
Feedback to incorporate into
evaluation plan
PM, PI
PM, ET, PI,
CO1, CO2,
BS
PM, ET, PI,
CO1, CO2
PM, ET, PI,
CO1, OS1,
OS2
PI, PM, ET,
CO1
PI, PM, ET,
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
Earliest start
date
Latest completion
date
Outputs
Responsibility
Milestone
Nov 08
Oct 10
CO1-4, OS12
PM
Feb 09
Jun 10
PM, PI, ET
44. Update project Blog
45. Update project website (internal)
46. Lunchtime seminars
Nov 09
Nov 09
Jun 09
47. Project meetings
48. Updates at Education Enhancement
meetings
49. Updates at University Innovation Group
meetings
50. Presentation of case-studies and papers
at conferences
51. Updates in University publications
52. Presentations to Staff Student Liaison
Nov 08
Nov 08
Oct 10
Oct 10
Ongoing
09-10
Oct 10
Oct 10
Blog
Website
Seminars in various Schools and
locations across the University
Meeting notes and minutes
Verbal updates
PM
PM, ET
PM, ET,
CO1, BS
All
PM, PI, BS
Jan 09
Oct 10
Verbal updates
PM, CO2
Jun 09
Oct 10
All
Nov 08
Nov 08
Oct 10
Oct 10
Presentation of case-studies
and papers
Published updates
Verbal updates
42. Blog and website dissemination –
evidence of use and reported
interest/impact (internal and external)
43. Feedback from bursary students
WP8: Dissemination
Objective: To tell others what we did,
with whom and what we found
Page 57 of 60
PM, PI
All
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
Earliest start
date
Latest completion
date
Outputs
Responsibility
Milestone
Committees
WP 9: Embedding New Practices and
Sustainability
Objective: To permeate piloted
technologies throughout the Business
School and beyond
53. Lunchtime seminars
Jun 09
54. Presentation of findings at School
roadshows
Jun 09
55. Knowledge and expertise gained by core
module leaders to permeate to other
Business School staff
56. Knowledge and expertise gained by
Education Enhancement Unit transferred
to other Schools
57. Knowledge and expertise gained shared
through LTHE Extras sessions
WP 10: Final Evaluation
Page 58 of 60
Ongoing
09-10
Ongoing
09-10
Seminars in various Schools and
locations across the University
Presentations of findings
PM, ET,
CO1, BS
PM, PI, ET,
CO1, OS1-2,
BS
All
Jun 09
Ongoing
Sharing of evidence-based
practice
Jun 09
Ongoing
practice
All
Jun 09
Ongoing
practice
All
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
Earliest start
date
Latest completion
date
Outputs
Responsibility
Milestone
Objective: To conduct a detailed and
critical evaluation of the project
58. Gathering of internal data to inform
project
Nov 08
Jul 10
59. Review of literature
Nov 08
July 10
Counts of papers/surveys
covered; review of processes
and outcomes; feedback from
staff and students
Literature review
60. Review of case studies and practice
changes in Business School
Jun 09
July 10
Contribution to final report
61. Recording of significant project events
Nov 08
July 10
62. Student focus groups
Mar 09
July 10
Blog postings; contribution to
final report
63. Staff interviews and focus groups
Nov 09
July 10
64.
Members of Project Team:
Project Manager (PM) – e-learning Advisor (Ali Press)
Principal Investigator (PI) – Education Enhancement’s Head of Project Development (Liz Dunne)
Education Technologist (ET) – (Laura Taylor)
Page 59 of 60
All
PM, PI, ET,
CO1-4, OS12
PM, PI, ET,
CO1-4, OS12
PM, ET
PM, ET, PI,
CO1, BS
PM, PI, ET,
CO1, BS
Version: 1.3
Date: 29/01/2009
Earliest start
date
Latest completion
date
Outputs
Co-Investigator (CO1) – e-Learning Advisor (Nick Birbeck)
Co-Investigator (CO2) – Head of e-Learning (Matt Newcombe)
Co-Investigator (CO3) – Head of Education Enhancement (Sue Burkill)
Co-Investigator (CO4) – Education Research & Evaluation Advisor (Tom Browne)
Other Staff (OS1) – Senior Teaching Fellow, Business School (Juliette Stephenson)
Other Staff (OS2) – Lecturers and Teaching Fellows, Business School (six core modules)
Bursary Students (BS) – students employed through project funds
Page 60 of 60
Responsibility
Milestone

Document 6524208

Transcription

Similar documents

Athletic Performance Center of Exeter Hospital

kites against cancer

Kites Against Cancer

Learn More - The Rinks At Exeter

kites against cancer

FOR SALE

SF, 1 Southernhay West, Exeter

Microsub Discovery

CAR SALES/DEALERSHIP PREMISES NEAR EXETER (LOTUS/PROTON)