2 fleck cbm intro_may2010
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
533
On Slideshare
513
From Embeds
20
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 20

http://cloudworks.ac.uk 15
http://www.slideshare.net 5

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • As a summary of costs – use to compare at a high level, why are there differences in amounts and proportions? Tolerance bands etc? How much variation should we expect?

Transcript

  • 1. Agenda Start End Item Speaker/Facilitator 09:00 09:30 Registration and coffee (Lobby Area)   09:30 09:40 Welcome and opening address - CBM in context Prof Denise Kirkpatrick 09:40 09:50 The journey so far Prof James Fleck 09:50 10:05 Case study Dr Perry Williams 10:05 10:15 Break   10:15 11:10 Breakout session #1 - The CBM framework CBM Project Team 11:10 11:15 Contingency/Break   11:15 12:10 Breakout session #2 - Embedding the CBM framework CBM Project Team 12:10 12:20 CBM next steps Mr Mick Jones 12:20 12:30 Wrap-up Prof Gráinne Conole
  • 2. The journey so far
    • Professor James Fleck,
    • Dean and Professor of Innovation Dynamics, OUBS
    • Project Director, Course Business Models
  • 3. Aims of the CBM project
    • Open up awareness of alternatives to “OU Classic”
    • Make visible the cost implications of choices made for module and programme development
    • Provide means for comparing approaches across course teams and faculties
    • Develop tools to help with effective production and presentation
    • Foster debate about pedagogic decisions and innovation
    • Embed insights from previous phases of CBM
  • 4. Key achievements to date
    • 5 view framework developed for capture and sharing of current best practice in form of exemplars and for articulating new course designs and proposals
    • Faculty/unit and cross-faculty/unit consultations and updates held
    • Initial development of support mechanisms and tools/resources to support implementation (eg. Excel templates, prototype flash widget for ‘Pedagogy Profile’ view, SAS report for Course Performance view, training materials)
    • Proposals developed to integrate framework into business as usual processes (via Stage Gate & other reporting reporting processes)
    • Framework and integration developed in parallel and with reference to JISC Curriculum Mapping initiative
    • Exemplar capture trial exercise
  • 5. CBM (2009) framework overview
    • A framework of 5 views for use cross-faculty to describe and analyse courses:
      • Course Map *
      • Course Dimensions *
      • Pedagogy Profile *
      • Cost Effectiveness +
      • Course Performance +
            • * Conceptual view
            • + Data driven view
  • 6. View 1 Course Map Guidance and support Communication and collaboration Reflection and demonstration Content and activities Key words
  • 7. Content and activities Communication and collaboration Reflection and demonstration Guidance and support View 2 Course Dimensions view
  • 8. View 3 Pedagogy Profile
  • 9. View 4 Cost Effectiveness view K208 Effective practice in youth justice
  • 10. Cost Effectiveness view – cost comparison
  • 11. View 5 Course Performance view
  • 12. Potential benefits 1
    • Course development practices become more transparent within and across faculties.
    • Course teams will be able to consult CBM exemplars when considering new curriculum developments
    • Course teams will be able to share best practice across faculties by contributing exemplars
    • Faculties will be able to develop better articulated, more adventurous and more cost effective course/remake proposals, drawing on exemplar best practice
    • Course teams will be able to start early course planning by articulating key characteristics of the student learning journey and outcomes and the overall architecture of a course rather than the content or detailed components
  • 13. Potential benefits 2
    • Course teams will be able to make greater use of more open course architectures and adopt more flexible and agile approaches to course development including more use of ‘found’ (vs. ‘bespoke’) materials
    • As course teams work they will be able to monitor the pedagogic profile and student workload and check out and play with a ‘good enough’ financial model
    • When courses are reviewed after the first presentation, and at subsequent points, a series of ‘at a glance’ reports enables important features to be explored and clearer decisions made on sound evidence
  • 14. Case Study #1
    • Dr. Perry Williams
    • Learning and Teaching Technologies Manager, FELS