The distributed development of quality courses

for a virtual university

Claire Bradley and Dr Tom Boyle

Dr Martin Oliver

University College London

Learning Technology Research Institute

Overview

An introduction to TISCAM (Training for Innovative Supply

Chain Management)

– Aims of TISCAM

– Groups within TISCAM

– What the learners are like

The quality systems for TISCAM

An example

Revisions to the model and wider implications

Aims of TISCAM

To create a masters-level course in supply chain

management

To provide action-based learning for learners in the

workplace

To create the infrastructure for an online university

To implement the infrastructure and materials

To deliver the materials to learners across the UK (and

even beyond)

Authors in TISCAM

Required to write the materials, design the learning

activities, identify or produce case studies etc.

Chosen for their academic reputation; “content” experts

Based at universities across the UK and in Europe (means

that distributed systems are needed for authoring)

Almost none have written for online courses;

few have any experience of developing distance courses

Learners in TISCAM

Study in the workplace

(i.e. adult learners with many demands on their time)

Require “bite size” materials that can be combined in

coherent pathways

Must have obvious vocational relevance and

be academically credible

Learner support in TISCAM

Tutors (online advice, guidance, marking - content

experts)

In-company mentors (helping learners complete work-

based activities)

Regional facilitators (general advice on choice of courses,

studying, etc.)

Other teams in TISCAM

Management team (co-ordination, scheduling, etc.)

Technical team (implementation of system and materials,

advice to authors)

– expertise in translating material into online multimedia

Learner support systems (design of guidelines, processes

and pedagogic review of materials)

– experts in curriculum design and online learning

A diagram of the authoring process

Author Academic editing

Pedagogic review

Technical review

Peer review

Technical implementation

What’s in the authoring guidelines?

A profile of the learners

Overview of the learner support systems

Authoring for an online environment; hints and tips

Notes on writing and submitting draft materials

Acceptable formats for submission

How to structure a unit to fit the web model

Feedback forms, specifying review criteria

Unit template form (“planning” documents, e.g. Aims,

objectives, learning outcomes...)

What happens in the editorial review?

Check the content meets academic criteria:

– Accuracy of content

– Mapping of content covered in unit

– Complementarity and overlap with other modules and

units

What happens in the pedagogic review?

Check that the content meets pedagogic criteria:

– Learning objectives are stated and can be achieved

– Good balance of learner activities, discussion, etc.

– Appropriate length

– Sufficient case studies and other related materials

– Realistic requirements for learner support

– Good use of language

Example: submitted material

Heavily text-based, requiring a lot of on-screen reading Few opportunities for learner interaction and engagement with

the materials were incorporated The 3 activities required learners to read additional material

from a text book, and produce written reports No self-assessment activities and no feedback to activities Too much tutor support, no mentor involvement suggested No unit summary or review

A unit from the management strategy module

The content was academically sound, but as distance learning material and for online delivery it was poor

Example: recommended revisions

Cut down the amount of written content and reading material Increase the number of activities, and place them at more

frequent intervals throughout the material Include some self-assessment activities to actively involve

learner’s and for them to check their understanding Introduce some form of feedback for activities where possible,

e.g. example answers, discussion with mentor Review unit support Include some case study material to enrich the content Produce a summary section

Example: illustration of material

The amount of material was substantially cut down and

was divided into more, shorter sections which would be

more manageable for learners to study

Activities were re-designed - additional reading and written

reports were minimised, and more self-assessment

activities with online feedback were developed

The result was a much more interesting, and effective

distance learning unit, which would translate well into the

online system

The author revised the unit according to many of the suggestions made:

Examples of online material

Tabs along the top allow navigation to section components:• content• related material• case studies• activities• community• student services

Module, unit, section orientation

Materials load into the window

Graphics are interactive and build up in animated sequences where possible

Activities allow responses to be submitted to the system via text entry fields or file submission. Responses are added to the learner’s portfolio.

Revisions to the model

Time constraints shortened the process; several steps had to happen in parallel

The pedagogic review incorporated technical advice and copy editing

There were delays putting materials online– This prevented people seeing good examples and

learning what can be done– Each revision to the system had implications for the

reviewers– Late release of the “web model” meant some authors

needed to revise the structure of their units

The revised authoring process

Author Academic editing

Pedagogic and

technical review

Technical implementation

Author’s meetings

Conclusions

Essentially the right model

– Didn’t need to re-skill academics (e.g. programming);the teams covered all the important aspects

– Consistent, polished results

– The materials that make it through are good! We had to adapt it for pragmatic reasons

– Doing it “properly” is time consuming; this may make the full quality system impractical

– Authors have to learn to do more than write hand-outs for the web

Conclusions

(Adaptations continued...)

– Materials can’t be written without understanding the support structures available

– Helping authors learn involves examples, a stable web model, individual discussions and support, room to make mistakes, etc.

The time scale is huge - it takes years to do this well The time required and range of expertise makes it

extremely expensive - quality doesn’t come cheap!

Contact details

Martin OliverHigher Education Research and Development Unit,

University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, WC1E 6BT

martin.oliver@ucl.ac.uk

Claire BradleyLearning Technology Research Institute,

University of North London, 236-250 Holloway Road, N7 6PP

c.bradley@unl.ac.uk http://www.unl.ac.uk/ltri

Tom BoyleLearning Technology Research Institute,

University of North London, 236-250 Holloway Road, N7 6PP

t.boyle@unl.ac.uk http://www.unl.ac.uk/ltri

TISCAM online materials: http://virt-u.com