HEFCE/JISC/Academy Open Educational Resources Grant Funding 14/08
Cover Sheet for Proposals
JISC/Academy Open Educational
Resources Programme
(All sections must be completed)
Name of Initiative:
Open Educational Resources
Programme bid to:
Individual
Name of Lead Institution:
Newcastle University
Institutional
Subject area
X
Name of individual:
Subject area:
Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
Name of Proposed Project:
Organising Open Educational Resources (OOER)
Name(s) of Project Partner(s):
Imperial College, London*; Intute Health and Life Sciences*; Keele
University*; London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine*;
Newcastle University*; Queen’s University Belfast*; The Royal
Veterinary College; St George’s, University of London*; University of
Aberdeen*; University of Bedfordshire*; University of Bristol*;
University of Edinburgh*; University of Liverpool*; University of
Nottingham; University of Oxford; University of Southampton*;
University of Warwick*. *letter of support appended.
Full Contact Details for Primary Contact:
Name: Dr Megan Quentin-Baxter
Position: Director, MEDEV
Email: [email protected]
Address: School of Medical Sciences Education Development, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle
University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4HH.
Tel: +44 191 2225888 Fax: +44 191 2225016
Length of Project:
12 Months
Project Start Date:
April 2009
Project End Date:
March 2010
Total Funding Requested from JISC/Academy:
£249,960
Total Institutional Contributions:
£435,260 (estimated)
Outline Project Description
This is a Subject Strand proposal on behalf of a wide variety of partners including HEIs from across the UK, with
Professional and Statutory Body and other stakeholder support. A comprehensive literature review and
justification for this work has been provided by the JISC in1; therefore we have focused here on resolving issues.
We aim to ‘open’ 360 credits of educational resources (ER) in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine/science,
postgraduate and staff development programmes. This project will focus on issues relating to these subjects
(such as consent, securing ER from staff delivering programmes who are non-HEI employed (e.g. NHS staff)),
complementing other projects in the OER programme.
The results of a mapping and ‘readiness’ categorisation phase, together with the development of simple ‘Toolkits’
(to help HEIs, Subjects and Individuals) will inform the identification of ER to be included, and uploading ER will
test the Toolkits. The project is run by MEDEV on behalf of the partners who will steer it through the work of an
Executive Group and Work Package Leaders. Evaluation will inform the partners and funders of issues arising
within the project and the results will be disseminated via websites and a stakeholder event.
The project is considered by the partners to be extremely challenging within the budget and the timescale.
I have looked at the example FOI form at Appendix A and
included an FOI form in the attached bid (Tick Box)
X
YES
NO
I have read the Funding Call and associated Terms and
Conditions of Grant at Appendix B (Tick Box)
X
YES
NO
1
Yuan, L., MacNeill, S. and Kraan, W. (2008). Open educational resources – opportunities and challenges for higher education, JISC,
http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/images/0/0b/OER_Briefing_Paper.pdf (a. Feb 2009).
1
Open Educational Resources – Subject Strand: Organising Open
Educational Resources (‘OOER’)
1.1 Introduction
This proposal seeks to unlock existing teaching and learning resources for the benefit of medical, dental and
veterinary teaching establishments in Higher Education in the UK, and beyond, by working with (largely riskaverse) higher education institutions (HEIs) to build capacity in sharing open educational resources2 (OER). It
is designed to complement Institutional and Individual Strand projects (IISP), and make use of expertise in
Academy and JISC projects and services, to promote the vision outlined in Circular 14/08
HEFCE/Academy/JISC Open Educational Resources – call for projects. Our long-term goal is to enable
UK HEIs to routinely upload OER to national repositories as the default, rather than the exception (if they
choose to do so) based on a solid understanding of the limitations and the benefits of OER. This project is set
within a longer period, to illustrate a possible direction of travel.
The hypothesis that institutions wish to open access to their educational resources (ER) has not yet been
widely tested in the UK3, and it may work better for some subjects than others. This Subject Strand consortium
aims to release a substantial number of existing learning resources under a suitable license for ‘open use
and repurposing’, and is supported by the institutions, Professional and Statutory Bodies, subject associations
and organisations represented in the letters of support (2 Appendix One: Letters of Support on page 11 below).
This is primarily a mapping and dissemination project, researching and linking together existing expertise in
developing policies, effective workflows and technical frameworks. Leaders have been identified to steer work
packages (WP); those who lead in one area might also contribute in others.
We have attempted to be realistic and avoid duplicating effort. In proposal preparation, some argued that all
the necessary technology, legal and policy information was already available; others that considerable effort
was still required to apply and understand these in the context of a multi-HEI collaboration with the added
complexity of protecting and quality assuring healthcare ER (including NHS staff contributions). Different
partners bring different skills, and potential content. To deliver the 360 credits we plan a two-phase approach:
to rapidly make available ER where confidence in their provenance is high; and to take more time, building in
quality assurance workflows, etc., where it is low. While all partners have volunteered content, not all partners
will make it to OER status in the lifetime of the project, depending on how institutional policies and business
plans are couched. Considerable uncertainty lies in the need to prioritise potential ER, and how to manage the
processes of clearing upstream rights and uploading materials. It is easy to make available resources which
have little or no value; we want to look at the whole range, including complex or challenging ER.
This proposal was difficult to write and, in particular, to cost (and therefore secure written institutional support).
While senior managers in all named partners are aware of this proposal, not all can commit, reflecting a need
for the sector to know the outcome of this work before we start. In order to avoid potential ‘conflict of interest’
MEDEV has prioritised the deliverables of IISP (in medical, dental and veterinary education) ahead of any
Subject Strand activities. We hope that our subjects feature in some IISP, to give us access to detailed HEI
policy development at the programme level, and work with them on resolving subject-related issues as our
contribution to the OER programme as a whole.
1.2 Objectives and Outputs
• Establish a sustainable collaboration around OERs involving UK HEIs, Professional and Statutory Bodies,
subject associations and other stakeholders; and building on existing collaborations and good practice.
• Adopt Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), etc., policies/approaches developed elsewhere, and further
develop policies necessary to support medical, dental and veterinary education (for uptake by HEIs) as a
suite of Toolkits.
• Investigate the processes necessary for different HEIs to upload ER from at different stages of readiness.
• Deliver a substantial number (c.360 credits) of OER in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine/science,
post-graduate education and staff development.
2
3
“Digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students and self-learners to use and reuse for teaching, learning and research”.
Yuan, L., MacNeill, S. and Kraan, W. (2008). Open educational resources – opportunities and challenges for higher education, JISC,
http://wiki.cetis.ac.uk/images/0/0b/OER_Briefing_Paper.pdf (a. Feb 2009).
Organisation for Economic Co-operational and Development (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of open educational
resources, OECD, http://tinyurl.com/62hjx6. (a. Feb 2009).
Page 1 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
• Promote and evaluate ‘resource discovery’ by staff and students, within limits of project constraints.
• Evaluate impact on existing collaborations. Inform funding bodies and existing services of any necessary
changes to their policies and procedures in response to medical, dental and veterinary ER.
• Document and disseminate processes to position partner and other HEIs to pursue future OER strategies.
1.3 Method
1.3.1
Partnership, Programme Managers and Working with IISP
The strength of this consortium is in the partnership which represents a wide variety of stakeholders whose
collective expertise has the potential to deliver this vision (see 1.12 Key Personnel below). This project will be
managed by MEDEV (see 1.8 Project Management, Staffing and Reporting) with the majority of the WP being
delivered by the partners. We envisage partner engagement at three levels: WP leaders with clear roles on
behalf of the partnership; content providers to pilot use of the Toolkits; and dissemination partners (see 1.8
Dissemination) who use the outcomes to inform HEI strategies. WP leaders may also provide content and
become dissemination outlets. We have retained some flexibility in order to support IISP in this call.
We see OER Programme Managers as integral to maximising communication across the programme.
1.3.1
Toolkits
This project will capitalise on existing expertise in policy development IPR/consent, metadata tagging,
repository use (including web 2.0) and quality assurance by documenting and testing a suite of ‘Toolkits’
(workflow diagrams or checklists) the necessary processes for HEIs’ to implement changes enabling them to
use their own or central repositories for storing and sharing ER. References to Toolkits are highlighted in bold
throughout this text, and a complete list is provided in 1.5 Project Plan and Timetable on page 6 below. Some
build on existing practise:
• Institutional policy development (collaborate with IISP). Document HR practice relating to IPR as Policy
Toolkit.
• Use existing APIs to develop workflows and content management to upload ER to JorumOpen and other
hosting sources: e.g. FaceBook; YouTube; Vimeo; iTunesU; del.icio.us; Flickr; SlideShare; Twitter.
Document API Toolkit. Document issues (cost, etc.) for ‘teaching staff upload’; or ‘support staff upload’.
• Document IPR/CC Toolkit: ownership/IPR/Creative Commons issues including ownership and licensing.
• Document metadata and standards/taxonomies and accessibility requirements: Metadata/Workflow
Toolkit.
• Identity and access management. Access to learning resources including sensitive materials. To include
access from NHS environments and ‘accessibility’ considerations. Document Access Toolkit.
1.3.2
Mapping and ‘Readiness’ Categorisation
It is essential to map the location of existing resources with a view to identifying which of the many resources
available in our subjects qualify for inclusion in this project (Figure 1), resulting in the Categorisation Toolkit.
Lossy: It is anticipated that many more resources will be identified than will eventually be uploaded to relevant
repositories via the API interface. Barriers include upstream IPR and consent rights, institutional policies, etc.
Readiness: ER will be catalogued to identify where they are on the ‘readiness scale’. Phase 1 resources
(Figure 1), where confidence is high, will be prioritised for uploading; with further work being expended in
Phase 2 to better understand the issues involved in moving ER up the readiness scale, and documenting why,
from a subject perspective, some excellent ER may never be made open. Regardless of the outcome of this
project, this step could inform all institutional ER policies.
Pedagogy and Maintenance: Once ER are open there are sound pedagogic reasons why they may need to
be periodically reviewed/renewed. A QA Toolkit will establish a pedagogy map, quality monitoring / peer
evaluation and ‘best before’ procedures. WP7 will also review options and make recommendations for future
maintenance.
Page 2 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
Figure 1. ‘Traffic light’ process diagram representing stages of potential ER ‘openness’ with Quality Assurance (QA)
and other checklist loops.
1.3.3
Content
All partners in this project have tentatively identified potential ER to be made ‘open’ in medicine, dentistry,
veterinary medicine/science, postgraduate and staff development programmes (see 1.4 Background on page 4
below). While the apparent richness is tantalising, we need the early results of WP4 in order to prioritise what
content will be chosen for Phase 1 and Phase 2 in WP8 in order to reach ‘360 credits’.
The Executive Group will be asked to define ‘principles’ for prioritising ER (assuming that materials pass the
Toolkit checks) in order to deliver WP8. Principles will relate to, for example, whether format of resource (e.g.
image, video, podcast) is important; how to ‘sample’ a wide range of content and identify coverage/gaps;
whether to allow or avoid duplication of resources (e.g. video illustrating ‘taking a blood pressure’ might be
available from several partners, or already ‘out there’ from a non-partner institution). If ER are being uploaded
into a national, rather than institutional repository, then it may be important to clearly brand content from
different HEIs.
In healthcare subjects ER should be as clinically relevant as possible, which may be sensitive. We will
document patient consent procedures in the context of the OER as a Consent Toolkit (reflecting statutory
limitations relating to DP, patient consent and privacy issues), and to collaborate with IISP to test it. Some HEIs
see content as their bread and butter; others see their processes (how they link content) as their unique selling
point. Some partners in this project are already in collaborative partnerships; all have a potential business case
for sales. A Collaboration Toolkit will investigate the relationship of these models4 with OER. The cost/effort
of making ER available from each part of the readiness scale (institutional, in transit and open) will be
investigated and documented as part of WP8.
1.3.4
Resource Discovery and Re-use
A Resource Discovery and Re-use Toolkit will be developed, based on evaluation of how staff and students
search for/find ER, and how ER can be linked to local VLE/delivery systems. It will make recommendations on
the granularity (size of an ER; from, say, an image to a whole first year curriculum), necessary metadata, and
licensing downstream rights. The results will inform the API and Metadata/Workflow Toolkits.
1.3.5
Scenarios/Use Cases
We have identified a series of possible use cases as illustrative of the scenarios that will be encountered:
Scenario 1. The Mapping and ‘Readiness’ Categorisation work package identified over 300 ER ready to
upload (where IPR and quality are ‘known’, but perhaps some metadata needs improving). Minor amendments
are made to make them more discoverable, and ER uploaded by a Project Officer to JorumOpen.
4
Downes, S. (2006) Models for sustainable open educational resources, National Research Council Canada,
http://www.oecd.org/document/32/0,2340,en_2649_33723_36224352_1_1_1_1,00.html (a. Feb 2009).
Page 3 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
Scenario 2. Institution X has been funded under the ‘institutional strand’ and has identified content in
medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine/science for inclusion. They work with their Data Controller and HR
department to clarify issues around ownership of resources, and the right CC license under which to release
them. They develop expertise in metadata management and quality assurance. They work with this Subject
Strand project, adopting the Consent Toolkit to categorise and limit access to ‘medic restrict’ resources
(where appropriate). Resources uploaded from Institution X count as part of the Institutional Strand 360 credits
output (not the Subject Strand).
Scenario 3. MEDEV works, as part of the Subject Strand project, with Institution X (above) and Individual Y
(below), who is part of an institution (Z), not funded under the Institutional Strand. Institution Z has partnered
two Subject Strand proposals; one in veterinary medicine/science, the other in the humanities. The two Subject
Strand projects work with each other (via the OER Programme Managers) to ensure policy recommendations
remain compatible.
Scenario 4. Individual Y has identified over 500 potential ER which they would like to make available in
veterinary science. Their institution (Z) is not an institutional project programme holder. They use the checklist
in the Policy Toolkit to identify whether their institution conforms to OER framework. One step is not clear and
so they (or Subject Centre staff) approach HR/PVC T&L office to ask for permission to release their content for
open consumption. Their HR contract states that the HEI owns their Teaching and Learning products.
Permission is granted and Y uploads.
Scenario 5. MEDEV has learned of individual P who may be willing to share an institutional ER collection in
dentistry that has generated by colleagues (including NHS staff) over several years. The checklist in the
IPR/CC and Consent Toolkits show that some resources (with unreferenced images) do not conform to good
practice guidelines, and that the remainder do. Their employing organisation subscribes to the OER framework
and policies for making materials available are clear, and they have agreements with NHS employers. The
Metadata, QA and API Toolkits are used to review and upload those resources passing the metadata and
quality standards. P uploads her own ER, but the remainder are ‘rights cleared’ and uploaded by one of the
Project Officers.
Scenario 6. Student A is searching for materials to help them with understanding the structure of the eye. A
search reveals four different items, one of which is ‘recommended’ on del.icio.us by Student B (who Student A
doesn’t know but others ‘follow’ them). Student A accesses the recommended item in preference to the other 3.
Scenario 7. Individual Q of the institution M downloads an ER and adds detail pertaining to tropical diseases,
which they use in their teaching. They upload the modified resource to JorumOpen.
Scenario 8. Data logging reveals what ER staff and students search for, and whether they download what they
found. A gap analysis highlights where new materials could be commissioned, or metadata improved, in order
to improve the ER available.
Scenario 9. [Beyond current scope.] ER in JorumOpen are dynamically mapped to curricula outcomes as
specified by the Professional and Statutory Bodies, Quality Assurance Agency and internal quality
documentation such as Programme and Module Specifications. Recommender sites ensure that popular items
are prioritised. Staff and students are dynamically presented with relevant ER when using their institutional
virtual learning environment (VLE).
1.4 Background
Drivers for change: The desire to share ER has a long history in this sector nationally (e.g. the CLIVE
consortium and Wikivet5), with the NHS (NHS-HE Forum and National Library for Health6), and internationally
(e.g. IVIDENT and IVIMEDS7). Substantial investment has been made in, for example, the Wellcome Images8
which are available to use in teaching under a Creative Commons9 licence. There is also considerable existing
expertise in the policy development, rights clearance, and change management required at institutional level in
order to enable the process of sharing content openly (MEDEV commissioned a set of case studies into the
use of JISC tools and services10, including Jorum). Issues of reusing existing materials (e.g. the ACETS
project11 which looked at existing barriers to using and reusing digital content), copyright and IPR (JISC
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CLIVE consortium: http://www.clive.ed.ac.uk/ and Wikivet http://www.vetschools.ac.uk/ (a. Feb 2009).
National Library for Health: http://www.library.nhs.uk/; and NHS-HE Forum: http://www.nhs-he.org.uk/ (a. Feb 2009).
International Virtual Dental and Medical Schools: http://www.ivident.info/ and http://www.ivimeds.org/ (a. Feb 2009).
Wellcome Trust Image Collection: http://images.wellcome.ac.uk/indexplus/page/News+Archive+18+June+2007.html (a. Feb 2009).
Creative Commons http://creativecommons.org/ (a. Feb 2009).
JISC miniprojects, case studies and communities of practice: http://www.medev.ac.uk/resources/features/miniprojects (a. Feb 2009).
Assess, Catalogue, Exemplify, Test and Share (ACETS): http://www.acets.ac.uk (a. Feb 2009).
Page 4 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
Casper12 project; with the discipline specific work undertaken in the REHASH and eVIP projects13) were
explored revealing how existing resources could be used in a number of different contexts with minimal
intervention and in the context of the discipline specific issues of for example, patient consent and using digital
recordings in learning and teaching in healthcare (CHERRI14 project and work at Bristol), in light of recent
public controversy and accompanying legal and regulatory body attention.
Most medical, dental and veterinary programmes have extensive VLE support using, for example, Blackboard,
Moodle, and bespoke systems such as Networked Learning Environments and EdSpace15. At Southampton
EdShare is developing sharing and collaboration in learning and teaching and to change culture by facilitating
all involved in education to share educational resources.
Quality: A need to focus on quality has been established by the UMAP and UK-CDR projects16. Quality is an
essential component of these programmes, with an emphasis being upheld by the professional and statutory
bodies curriculum documentation17. While historical materials are useful it is essential that ER in health are
accurate and up-to-date. This consortium believes that staff and students need to be incentivised in order to
adopt new approaches to teaching and learning. The HORUS, HeLM and HeLMET projects18 sought to
maximise clinical teaching opportunities, and shorten and enhance feedback loops to better support students
and staff. Mapping projects such as the Scottish Doctor19 and Dynamic Learning Maps20 illustrate the potential
for ER to be mapped to learning outcomes.
Content: Partners have tentatively sign-posted substantial quantities of existing resources. Each of the
schools represented here has extensive curricula materials such as PowerPoint files, images, videos, reusable
learning resources, etc. For example, Newcastle’s medical curriculum is populated by ‘patient cases’, each with
links to extensive learning resources. Southampton has content in nutrition (including the nutrition portal);
mental health and virtual patient exemplars, and other static and interactive resources, which would be of
potential value to a wide variety of users. A UK-US collaboration has developed eDoctoring21 content.
Aberdeen and Edinburgh are internationally recognised for their learning content (3 Appendix Two: Further
Details of Partners/Key Personnel on page 12 below). At Oxford the Patient Experiences produces an awardwinning website22 digitally recorded interviews with ~50 patients which is freely available from public web server
and SGUL has well developed patient cases. Bristol has extensive resources in dentistry, and the RVC and
Nottingham produce ER with other vet schools as a part of CLIVE and WikiVet. Staff development is essential
to the training of the next generation of healthcare workers and a wide variety of materials have been collected
in the RAFTT23 community develops teacher training materials for clinical teachers.
Standards: Uptake of international pedagogic and technological standards were essential to Intute Health and
Life Sciences/AIRDIP24 and specific projects (e.g. ReViP25). MedBiquitous Europe26 worked to promote the
adoption and implementation of MedBiquitous technical standards and specifications for healthcare education
within Europe. Social software developments include an exploration of the exposition of resources in a variety
of differing environments has been a feature of the CSO27 project, which has an established YouTube channel,
and RVC Podcasts28 via ITunesU.
Accessibility: Access to some clinical teaching materials needs to be controlled, for reasons of respect, or
data protection. The social and technical frameworks for managing access to clinical teaching materials were
explored in the IAMSECT29 project.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
JISC CASPER: http://jisc-casper.org/ (a. Feb 2009).
Repurposing Existing Healthcare Assets to Share (REHASH): http://www.elu.sgul.ac.uk/rehash/; and Electronic Virtual Patients (eVIP):
http://www.virtualpatients.eu/ (a. Feb 2009).
Common Healthcare Educational Recordings Reusability Infrastructure: http://www.cherri.mvm.ed.ac.uk/ (a. Feb 2009).
Network Learning Environments: http://nle.ncl.ac.uk/ and ESpace: http://www.edspace.ecs.soton.ac.uk/ (a. Feb 2009).
Universities Medical Assessment Partnership: http://www.umap.org.uk/; and UK-Collaboration for a Digital Repository for High Stakes
Assessments: http://www.ukcdr.manchester.ac.uk/ (a. Feb 2009).
General Medical Council (GMC); General Dental Council (GDC) and Royal College of Veterinary Sciences (RCVS).
HORUS: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/delethorus.html; HORUS e-Learning Management (HeLM): http://www.medicine.manchester.ac.uk/helm/; and
HORUS e-Learning Management Extension for Tutors (HeLMET) http://www.medicine.manchester.ac.uk/helmet/ (a. Feb 2009).
The Scottish Doctor/GMC Tomorrow’s Doctors cross-referencing project: http://www.scottishdoctor.org/node.asp?id=aligntd (a. Feb 2009).
Dynamic Learning Maps: http://www.eportfolios.ac.uk/?pid=203 (a. Feb 2009).
dDoctoring: http://edoctoring.ncl.ac.uk/ (a. Feb 2009).
Patient Experiences Group website Healthtalkonline: http://www.healthtalkonline.org/ (a. Feb 2009).
Resource Archive/Activities for Teacher Training (RAFTT): http://www.medev.ac.uk/randd/RAFTT/ (a. Feb 2009).
Intute Health and Life Sciences: http://www.intute.ac.uk/; and the Academy Intute Resource Database Integration Project (AIRDIP):
http://www.medev.ac.uk/AIRDIP_Files/local_search.html (a. Feb 2009).
Repurposing Virtual Interactive Patients ReViP http://www.elu.sgul.ac.uk/revip/ (a. Feb 2009).
MedBiquitous Europe consortium: http://www.medbiq.org/about_us/medbiq_europe/ (a. Feb 2009).
Clinical Skills Online (CSO): http://www.elu.sgul.ac.uk/cso/ and associated YouTube Channel http://www.youtube.com/sgulcso (a. Feb 2009).
Royal Veterinary College podcasts: http://www.rvc.ac.uk/review/Podcasts/ (a. Feb 2009).
Inter-institutional Authorisation Management to Support eLearning in Clinical Teaching (IAMSECT): http://iamsect.ncl.ac.uk/ (a. Feb 2009).
Page 5 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
1.5 Project Plan and Timetable
The project plan is described below in terms of 12 broad work packages together with indications of the
implementation timetable and milestones. The project will commence in April 2009 and run for 12 months.
Table 1. Work packages identified to deliver the outcomes of this project. WP ‘leads’ steer that aspect of work.
WP
Description
Lead and
support
~%
resource
MEDEV with
Executive
Group
16
SGUL with
LSHTM &
Warwick
6.0
Bristol
4.0
Start
mnth
End
mnth
Apr
09
Jun
09
May
09
Sept
09
May
09
Sept
09
May
09
Dec
09
WP1
Formalise roles including project management. Establish terms of reference for the
Executive Group; Work Strand Groups (WSG); and reporting structures and timetable for
meetings. Finalise consortium agreement. Website. Detailed project planning. Schedule
Executive Group meetings. Submit operational plan and reports.
WP2
Literature and existing project review to document IPR/CC, API, QA (building on existing
experience), Metadata/Workflow and Access Toolkits.
WP3
Document patient consent procedures. Consider statutory limitations relating to DP, patient
consent and privacy issues. Develop Consent Toolkit.
Refine “Mapping and ‘Readiness’ Categorisation” model. Identify and categorise potential
resources including student generated resources and preferred sites. Document resource
availability. Develop Categorisation Toolkit.
Newcastle
with MEDEV
8.0
WP4
WP5
Institutional policy development. Document HR practice relating to IPR. Collaborate with
IISP. Develop multiple-HEI Policy Toolkit. Disseminate/provide support for HEIs to adopt.
Keele
2.0
May
09
Sept
09
WP6
How does OER affect existing collaborations and international (including developing world)
‘markets’? Develop Collaboration Toolkit to brief senior managers.
QUB
1.5
May
09
Sept
09
WP7
Establish pedagogy map, quality monitoring / peer evaluation and ‘best before’ procedures.
Refine QA Toolkit. Informs other Toolkits.
Oxford
2.5
May
09
Sept
09
Upload ‘360 credits’ of educational resources via API. Document the processes
necessary to enable ER to be made ‘open’. This WP is likely to be delivered by multiple
institutions based on Subject; Student/Staff; etc., coordinated by MEDEV.
MEDEV
with:
48
WP8
Jul
09
Jan
10
8.1
Medicine
S’mpton
“
“
8.2
Dentistry
QUB
“
“
RVC with
Nottingham
“
“
LSHTM
“
“
8.3
Veterinary medicine/science
8.4
Postgraduate
8.5
Staff Development
Bedfordshire
“
“
Warwick
with Intute
2.0
Nov
09
Feb
10
WP9
Evaluate ‘resource discovery’ with staff and students. Investigate downstream rights for reuse. Document as a Resource Discovery and Re-use Toolkit. Inform other WPs.
WP10
Host workshops, dissemination/engagement event/s to raise awareness of, inform and
obtain feedback on Toolkits in order to refine them, and encourage uptake of the OER.
MEDEV
6.0
Feb1
0
Feb
10
WP11
Evaluate the project using constructive SWOT analysis of each WP. Disseminate
according to the strategy; publish on HEA/JISC websites, and in appropriate journals.
ICL
2.0
Feb
10
Mar
10
WP12
Exit strategy and sustainability. Develop Sustainability Toolkit pulling together and
documenting outcomes listed above.
MEDEV
1.5
Mar
10

Future Work packages – beyond current scope
Automate metadata / attribute addition. Further develop dynamic resource discovery based
on metadata. Undertake qualitative studies of resource use by students & staff.
TBC
Apr
10

Map resources to curricula learning outcomes and explore dynamic uptake from VLEs.
TBC


Widen contributions from / uptake of OER strategies by HEIs.
TBC


1.6 Risks and Limitations
A detailed risk assessment and management strategy will be developed with the operational plan.
Table 2. Broad analysis of potential risks to the project.
Prob’lity
(max. 5)
Impact
(max. 5)
Score
(max. 25)
Institutional engagement and
legal barriers
4
4
16
Existing collaborations; wide range of institutions involved;
relationship with IISP; legal considerations featured in proposal.
JorumOpen not ready
3
3
9
Other repositories can be used as an alternative.
‘Upstream’ rights clearance
2
(not extensively discussed in )
3
3
9
Selection of resources to choose from. Risk is anticipated.
Quality and currency
2
4
8
Quality monitoring has been factored into proposal.
Risk
Mitigation
Page 6 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
Risk
Prob’lity
(max. 5)
Impact
(max. 5)
Score
(max. 25)
Stakeholder involvement and
collaboration (‘buy-in’)
2
3
6
Develop an effective communication strategy; project manager;
early engagement of partners and wider constituency.
Insufficient funding for all
partners
2
3
6
Twin track approach should deliver content. Leveraging on
outcomes in IISP. Funds in excess of the limit are requested.
Technological approach used
unsuitable
2
2
4
Expert consultancy/advice in partnership; technologies already
tested; several technologies to choose from.
Staffing
2
2
4
Wide experience in the sector able to assist.
Scope creep
1
2
2
The scope of work outlined is clear; strong management.
Project
management/complexity
2
1
2
While this is a large and complex partnership the management is
clear, with clearly identified leads for each work package.
Complexity of relationships
between Subject Strand and
IISP
2
1
2
Close liaison with co-ordinating teams; high level support from
HEIs at outset; co-ordinated programme level support from
Academy/JISC.
Mitigation
1.7 Evaluation and Quality Monitoring
Due to the short timescale, project evaluation will focus on qualitative improvement and highlight potential
enhancement opportunities, as well as signposting good practice for uptake elsewhere. Evaluation will work
particularly closely with WP7 and WP9. Evaluation techniques (focus groups, questionnaires, telephone
interviews, normal QA monitoring) will encompass stakeholder groups including students.
The evaluator will provide informal SWOT commentary and feedback on progress the work packages to WP
Leaders, each meeting of the Executive Group, and feedback to the funders. The project will comply with the
overarching requirements of the HEFCE/Academy/JISC and seek answers to the following broad research
questions (to be finalised/further focussed by the Executive Group):
• Has the project met its specific objectives?
• How has the project moved the partner and other UK HEIs forward in relation to developing OER
strategies?
• Is the approach broadly cost-effective and convenient for staff and students, and their HEIs?
• Are materials accessible, and clearly branded according to the ownership / licensing terms?
• Can we ‘SWOT’ a UK HEI OER strategy to help UK HEIs, and in a broader international context?
1.8 Dissemination
With such a large consortium (and a relatively tight timescale) dissemination is initially focused internally on the
project partners, with external dissemination via the website, a stakeholder meeting and conference/academic
papers. Some partners in this project are only dissemination partners (who wish to learn the lessons arising
from the project). Full reports and deliverables will be available to the programme managers for the
Academy/JISC websites.
Project website: A website will be established with web 2.0 facilities (including RSS/Atom feeding using
#ukoer tag) and access to the ER upload facilities identified by this project. Draft and final versions of Toolkits
will be available.
Web 2.0. A project Wiki and del.icio.us sites have been established to facilitate within-project communication.
Meetings and Workshops: Internal dissemination will be facilitated by regular project meetings (Skype and
VC) and workshops to progress the WPs, as appropriate. As a high proportion of medical, dental, veterinary
and staff development programmes are represented in this project, regular meetings will facilitate cross-project
awareness.
Conference: A dissemination and engagement stakeholder conference has been scheduled for February 2010
where the project deliverables (findings, toolkits, credits’ and evaluation results) will be presented and tested
with a wider audience; also to inform any future development work. Toolkits will be refined following
stakeholder feedback.
Toolkits, reports, conference papers and refereed journal papers: Regular reports will be produced and
made available. The results will be presented at relevant conferences and to raise awareness. International
stakeholders have expressed interest in this work (see letters of support).
Page 7 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
1.9 Project Management, Staffing and Reporting
The strategic direction, operational decisions and quality
assurance of the project will be carried out by an Executive
Group (EG), representing participating organisations and
Chaired by a senior member of staff at the lead site. A Director,
Project Manager and Work Package Leaders have been
identified (see 1.5 Project Plan and Timetable above and 1.12
Key Personnel below). The overall organisation chart for the
management of the project, with multiple work packages, is
illustrated (left).
The exact staffing configuration is dependent on details
emerging from WP4, and early piloting of the process of
uploading ER, therefore partner involvement has been
estimated based on Work Package Leaders to steer each WP;
Academic Staff (content providers); and Project Officers to
support delivery of the Toolkits, and uploading ER. The project
will primarily buy out existing staff. Central institutional support
staff (such as library and information specialists) and students
will be involved in partners as appropriate. Other stakeholders
have offered to participate (e.g. NICE & NLH). A consortium
agreement has been drafted (see http://www.medev.ac.uk/oer/)
which will be further informed by the outcomes of WP2. This
project will be governed under English law and adhere to FOI
arrangements at the lead site. Disputes will be escalated to the
MEDEV Advisory Board. Staff employed on this project will undergo training by attending relevant staff
development event at host institutions; presenting at conferences and external development opportunities such
as SEDA, Netskills, TASI, TechDis, JISC Legal etc. It is anticipated that sharing expertise among the partners
will be an important staff development activity.
Operational plans (including refinement of e.g. risk analysis), detailed evaluation and dissemination strategies
and progress reports will be prepared by the Project Manager and signed off by the EG for the funders.
1.10 Exit Strategy, Impact and Sustainability
This work stands alone as an initial capacity building project; and as the first step in a longer continuum
towards much greater understanding of the potential of UK HEI OER strategies to deliver benefits for learners
in the UK and beyond. In the first instance, the Toolkits developed (pulled together with documented options for
on-going sharing in a final Sustainability Toolkit) will facilitate HEIs with clinical subjects (including some
partners in this project) to adopt an OER strategy, if they wish.
This is a large consortium in order to secure the expertise and potential content necessary. It aims to work with
others, particularly projects arising from Health Sciences and Practice constituency. The major impact will be
within the consortium in the effort to develop and apply the Toolkits, and upload ER. The partnership will be
maintained by support from MEDEV who already has an ‘IMPS’ JISCmail list which has fostered some of the
work outlined in 1.4 Background above. There is a work strand on relationships with external
stakeholders/collaborations in order to understand how UK OER might impact on partnership business plans
elsewhere, and to enhance dissemination for resources via existing relationships (worldwide).
There is a great deal to achieve in the timescale; and further research outputs will be delivered beyond the
lifetime of this project. Not all partners, or institutions outside the partnership, will have uploaded ER within this
one-year period. All will, however, be well positioned to deliver under future rounds of the OER programme.
1.11 Budget, IPR, Licensing and Value for Money
ER and other materials (such as Toolkits and reports) developed as part of the project will remain the
property of the generating site, under their internal IPR arrangements. Resources and recommendations /
Toolkits / findings will be released under an appropriate creative commons licence and uploaded to as many
relevant sites as possible via the API interface.
Project management/support, and a central budget for e.g. travel, consumables and dissemination have been
transparently costed based on pFACT values for the lead site (Table 3); plus estimates for partner institutions
(estimating staffing required to deliver the objectives of the project) based on costs provided to date. While the
Page 8 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
fEC calculated (£435,260) may represent an over-estimate, the total £685,220 for the project is well in excess
of 100% of matched funds requested (£249,960). This is a large consortium with excellent potential. Once the
initial barriers are understood, reproducing ER upload becomes highly cost-effective. If further funding (e.g.
50K) was available we believe that significantly more ER could be released. Therefore this proposal
represents excellent value for money.
Table 3. Costings as estimated by TRAC funding (pFACT). Directly Incurred [DI] (full time on project) and Directly
Allocated [DA] are indicated.
Unit
pFACT Costing
Main Proposal
wte
Institutional
Contribut’n
Amount
Requested
Total
Budget
Apr 09 –
Mar 10
Apr 09 –
Mar 10
Apr 09 –
Mar 10
£
£
£
Host/Lead Site
Project Director (0.35wte / 12 months) [DA]
1
25,025
0
25,025
Project Manager (0.4wte / 12 months) [DA]
Senior Advisor, Newcastle (0.1wte / 12 months) [DA]
1
0
21,605
21,605
1
6,489
0
6,489
Senior Advisor, MEDEV (0.1wte / 12 months) [DA]
1
5,921
0
5,921
Project Officer – Research (1.0wte / 9 months) [DI]
1
0
29,353
29,353
Project Officer – IT (1.0wte / 12 months) [DA]
1
19,822
19,821
39,643
Advisor, MEDEV (0.4wte / 23 months) [DA]
1
17,517
0
17,517
Clerical Support, MEDEV (1.0wte / 12 months) [DA]
1
22,319
0
22,319
Consultant, Information Systems and Services (5 days consultancy) [DA]
1
1,430
0
1,430
98,523
70,779
169,302
Sub-total Lead Site
Partner Sites (estimated)
Project Leader (Partner Site) (0.1wte / 12 months) [DA] 10x
10
75,240
0
75,240
Academic OER Contributor 0.1wte / 9 months) [DA] 18x
18
0
99,463
99,463
Project Officer (0.1wte / 12 months) [DA]
7
0
30,653
30,653
75,240
130,116
205,356
Sub-total Partner Sites
Shared Costs
Recruitment Costs [DI]
2
0
3,785
3,785
Project Website [DI]
1
0
2,825
2,825
Furniture (1,316) and Telephones (614) [DI]
2
0
2,610
2,610
Consumables [DI]
4
0
905
905
Equipment – Computer Hardware and Software (2,112) + VC (4,582) [DI]
4
6,694
6,694
13,388
Staff Development (6x training @255 per day and 3x conference attendance
@502-estimated) and Contribution to School Resources (1,502) [DI]
2
1,017
3,538
4,555
Travel and Subsistence Including Attendance @Programme Meetings [DI]
1
0
5,091
5,091
Survey Costs (Resource Discovery) [DI]
1
0
1,527
1,527
Final Report Costs (Layout and Design) [DI]
1
0
1,222
1,222
Rights Clearance & Dissemination Activities – Workshops/Conference [DI]
1
0
13,236
13,236
Project Evaluation [DI]
1
0
7,632
7,632
7,711
49,065
56,776
42,562
0
42,562
University Costs – Partner Sites (x10) (estimated)
211,224
0
211,224
Sub-total University Costs
253,786
0
253,786
Sub Totals
435,260
249,960
685,220
Sub-Total Shared Costs
University Costs Including Estates
University Costs – Lead Site
Waiver of University Costs (at 100%) and Institutional Staffing Contribution
Total Requested £
-435,260
249,960
Page 9 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
1.12 Key Personnel
1.12.1
Accountable Officers
Chair of Executive Group: Professor Geoff Hammond (Director, CETL4HealthNE and Head, School of
Medical Sciences Education Development (MSED), Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University). Geoff
was appointed Director of the inaugural Faculty of Medicine Computing Centre in 1992, which became MSED,
currently with over 110 staff. He has led HEFCE, NHS, charitable, US-UK and JISC funded projects. He is a
member of Faculty and University Teaching Committees.
Director: Dr Megan Quentin-Baxter, (Director, MEDEV). Megan has extensive experience of managing and
contributing to projects such as TLTP3-86; and directs the MEDEV Subject Centre. She is a Newcastle
Teaching and Learning fellowship holder; a fellow of the Academy of Medical Educators and a member of the
Professional and Statutory Body ‘Inter-regulatory Group’.
Project Manager: Suzanne Hardy (Senior Advisor (Information) MEDEV). Suzanne is highly experienced at
supporting major projects, dissemination, communities of practice, social software, vocabulary and metadata
involved in sharing (e.g. ACETS, AIRDIP, MEDEV miniprojects, CETIS metadata SIG). She is a member of the
Academy Inclusion Group.
Project Officers: (to be appointed). The Project Officers will undertake support for WP leaders.
1.12.2
Partners (In Alphabetical Order)
For details of key personnel partner interests please see 3 Appendix Two: Further Details of Partners/Key
Personnel on page 12 below, or the MEDEV OER website30.
Sara Atkinson (Lecturer, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine).
Charavanan Balasubramaniam (Project Manager, St George’s, University of London).
Michael Begg (eLearning Manager, Learning Technology Section, University of Edinburgh).
Gillian Brown (Advisor, MEDEV).
Trevor Bryant (Senior Lecturer, School of Medicine, University of Southampton).
Dr David Davies (Associate Professor, Reader in Medical Education, University of Warwick).
Dr Reg Dennick (Assistant Director of Medical Education, University of Nottingham).
Tim Denning (VLE Project Coordinator, Keele University).
Paul Drummond (Deputy Director, Learning Technologies for Medical Sciences, Newcastle University).
Dr Neil Hamilton (Director, Medi-CAL Unit, College of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Aberdeen).
Dr Stan Head (OCTAVE Project Manager, Royal Veterinary College).
Dr Brian Lunn (Senior Lecturer and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, Newcastle University; Associate Dean for
Examinations, Royal College of Psychiatrists).
Trevor Manning (e-Learning Advisor, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine).
Dr Kieran McGlade (Deputy Director of Medical Education, Queen’s University, Belfast).
Adrian Molyneux (Learning Technology Manager, Keele University Medical School).
Professor Judy McKimm (University of Bedfordshire).
Dr Sue Morison (CETL CEIPE Director, Queen’s University Belfast).
Dr Clare Morris (Associate Dean, Curriculum, University of Bedfordshire).
[Dr Liz Mossop (Lecturer, University of Nottingham).]
Dr Helen O’Sullivan (Director, Professionalism CETL, University of Liverpool).
Nigel Purcell (Senior Advisor, MEDEV).
Nick Short (Head of eMedia Unit, Royal Veterinary College).
Dr Vivien Sieber (Medical Sciences Division - Learning Technologies, University of Oxford).
Maria Toro-Troconis (Senior Learning Technologist, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London).
Janet Wheeler (Information Systems and Services, Newcastle University).
Jackie Wickham (Service Manager, Intute Health & Life Sciences).
Dr Jane Williams (Director e-learning (medicine), University of Bristol).
1.12.1
Consultants and Advisors
Angie Clarke (Head of Services, National Library for Health (NLH)).
Dr Kamran Siddiqu (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)).
Freda Andrews (Head of Education, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons).
Professor Mike Wilkes (CEO, IVIMEDs).
30
MEDEV OER website: http://www.medev.ac.uk/oer/ see further details of partners (a. Feb 2009).
Page 10 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
2
Appendix One: Letters of Support
2.1 From Partners
[Letters of support of support from partners supplied as per annotation on front page of proposal.]
2.2 Other Letters of Support
Freda Andrews, Head of Education, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons
Professor Mike Wilkes, International Virtual Medical School (IVIMEDS)
Kamran Siddiqi, Education Advisor, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
Professor Steve Field, Chairman of Council, Royal College of General Practitioners
Professor Robert Howard, Dean, Royal College of Psychiatrists
Professor Peter Coolbear, Director, Ako Aotearoa, National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence, New
Zealand
Page 11 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
3
Appendix Two: Further Details of Partners/Key Personnel
On behalf of institutions and their central support services:
Sara Atkinson31 (Lecturer, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine). Sara is a course director for a
distance learning MSc with ten years of general teaching experience and a PATHE qualification from the IoE.
She has been involved in the conversion of paper-based course material to an up to date electronic format
teaching materials (involving the use of copyright images and web-based information) to meet the accessibility
and academic needs of LSHTM students who are drawn from a wide geographical and educational
background.
Charavanan Balasubramaniam (Project Manager, Educational Technology Unit, St Georges University of
London). Chara is a PRINCE2 and MSP accredited practitioner who manages the EC-funded eViP project for
SGUL. He has been Project Manager for the recently completed REViP project as part of the JISC
RePRODUCE Programme. Chara has also managed past JISC and Higher Education Academy funded
projects including REHASH and CSO.
Michael Begg (eLearning Manager, Learning Technology Section, College of Medicine and Veterinary
Medicine University of Edinburgh). Michael has extensive experience of developing reusable learning objects
(through the ACETS project) and developed Labyrinth to support development of ‘virtual patients’. Edinburgh
won the Queen’s Anniversary Prize in 2006 for their learning support environment supporting clinical
education.
Gillian Brown (Advisor, MEDEV). Gillian coordinates MEDEV support for veterinary (including veterinary care
professions) and dental care professions. She coordinates WikiVet project, and is involved in the VETNET
Lifelong Learning Network (LLN) investigating pathways into veterinary and land based education at HE level.
She is undertaking a masters in education with the OU.
Trevor Bryant (Senior Lecturer, School of Medicine, University of Southampton). Trevor organises and
lectures on research methods at undergraduate and postgraduate level, and works within iSolutions on IT. He
is PI on ‘e-Assignment’ (JISC Institutional Innovation), and a MEDEV miniproject. Southampton is a partner in
IVIMEDs.
Dr David Davies (Associate Professor, Reader in Medical Education, University of Warwick). David has long
been involved in the creation and sharing of ER, especially technical aspects including metadata and
repository interoperability. Formerly the Technical Director of IVIMEDS, he has more recently worked with the
NHS to develop a learning object metadata application profile.
Dr Reg Dennick (Assistant Director of Medical Education, University of Nottingham). Reg runs ‘Training the
Teachers’ courses and is a content provider of staff development materials. He has an international reputation
in staff development and has been a project leader for a variety of projects (e.g. RAFTT; TLTP3-86).
Tim Denning (VLE Project Coordinator, Keele University). Tim is a member of Keele's recently formed
Learning Development Unit with research interests in learning, cognition and new technologies.
Paul Drummond (Deputy Director, Faculty of Medical Sciences Computing, Newcastle University). His key
interests lie in the development of reflective portfolios to support undergraduate and postgraduate clinical
trainees and he is a reviewer for the International Journal of Undergraduate, Postgraduate and Continuing
Medical Education. He has been involved in the development of interoperability standards for the exchange of
learner information, and is currently a member of the JISC Distributed eLearning Advisory Board. Paul’s
current projects include the development of teaching materials (covering cancer screening, genomics, end of
life issues and shared decision making) to support the CPD of doctors in the United States (Washington and
California) funded by the National Human Genome Project / the Centre for Disease Control (Atlanta).
Dr Neil Hamilton (Director, Medi-CAL Unit, College of Life Sciences and Medicine, University of Aberdeen).
With Mr Keith Duguid Neil established the Medi-CAL Unit in 1992, a core service producing leading-edge elearning and web-based applications for medical, science, dental and postgraduate students; healthcare
workers and patients, and undertaking technical and educational research. The Unit has won six awards,
identified as excellent in GMC curriculum reviews, and raised >£1M funding from a wide variety of sources
including WHO, UNICEF and the NHS.
Dr Stan Head (OCTAVE Project Manager, Royal Veterinary College). Stan has a background as an academic,
and now leads on shared assessment item banking and objective, structured clinical examinations in veterinary
education. He has experience of IPR, copyright, social and institutional sharing issues from his work with
OCTAVE, LIVE CETL, and MEDEV miniprojects.
31
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/people/atkinson.sara (a. Feb 2009).
Page 12 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
Dr Brian Lunn (Senior Lecturer and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, Newcastle University; Associate Dean
for Examinations, Royal College of Psychiatrists). Content provider. Brian has substantial experience in
generating multimedia teaching materials and use of Creative Commons licences and re-purposing content
across disciplines. Particular interests include embedding of pedagogic content in distributable learning
packages.
Trevor Manning32 (e-Learning Advisor, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine). Trevor has previous
experience teaching Computer-Aided Visualisation and assessment of support requirements including the use
of assistive technologies for students with disabilities. He provided e-learning training, as well as 1st & 2nd level
support; responsible for the implementation of VLEs with HE, and evaluation of emerging e-learning
technologies, as well as JISC Project Manager with the Distributed Learning Programme 2005/06. Trevor is
also an Associate Lecturer with the OU (MA Open & Distance Education Programme).
Dr Kieran McGlade (Deputy Director of Medical Education, Queen’s University, Belfast). Partner in IVIMEDs.
Published under Scientific Commons. MEDEV miniproject ‘Enhancing deaf awareness and communication
skills of medical students: Development of online resources’.
Professor Judy McKimm (University of Bedfordshire). Leads some staff development activity on behalf of
MEDEV including leading a mini-project on legal education in medicine.
Adrian Molyneux (Learning Technology Manager, Keele University Medical School). Adrian is a content
provider, and has research and development interests in assessment and learning technologies.
Dr Sue Morison (CETL CEIPE Director, Queen’s University Belfast). Sue is an interprofessional education
leader with experience of working with a wide variety of subjects, such as dentistry, nursing and medicine, and,
along with other members of the Interprofessional Education teaching team, was a recipient of a Queen's
University Teaching Award for the IPE programme in Paediatrics.
Dr Clare Morris (Associate Dean, Curriculum, University of Bedfordshire). Clare is a UK leader in ‘trainer
development’ in clinical education. She runs the MEDEV special interest group in staff development, and
contributes to the RAFTT project.
[Dr Liz Mossop (Lecturer, University of Nottingham). Liz worked in mixed but predominantly equine practice
for 6 years before developing an interest in veterinary education and beginning a Masters degree in Clinical
Education. She joined the newly formed School of Veterinary Medicine and Science in 2006, and was awarded
a Lord Dearing Award for outstanding teaching in 2007.]
Dr Helen O’Sullivan (Director, Professionalism CETL, University of Liverpool). Helen is interested in
integrating professionalism skills and attributes into the curriculum; methods of assessing professionalism;
emotional literacy in medical students; higher education management; knowledge of and attitudes towards
human genetic technology, and careers advice development. She can coordinate content from Liverpool
University.
Nigel Purcell (Senior Advisor, MEDEV). Nigel has worked in staff development for 20 years, is an Academy
Accreditor of institutional programmes, an inaugural member of the Academy of Medical Educators, and leads
the RAFTT project.
Nick Short (Head of eMedia Unit, RVC). Institutional, social and technical issues, sharing across the UK and
Europe (CLIVE, LIVE CETL, WikiVet, MEDEV miniprojects). Extensive experience of working in third word
countries (Swaziland, Botswana), and founded Internet Learning Trust (ILT) which supported internet links
between the developing world and UK schools. Particularly interested in how technology can support lifelong
learning. Responsible for creating a new model for e-CPD at RVC as well as launching the RVC 4 Life
initiative.
Dr Vivien Sieber (Medical Sciences Division - Learning Technologies, University of Oxford). Vivien is a
content provider experienced in institutional, social, legal technical processes and barriers to sharing content.
She under-took medical research, teaching in both research-intensive and million+ universities, using elearning in her own teaching and helping others to use technology effectively. She was awarded a University of
Oxford Teaching Excellence Award in 2005.
Maria Toro-Troconis (Senior Learning Technologist, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London). In depth
knowledge of International Learning Standards and their implementation across platforms. Currently
undertaking a PhD within the Faculty of Medicine in Imperial College London and Luleå University of
Technology entitled "Gender-related differences and game-based learning for virtual patients in Second Life".
Janet Wheeler (Information Systems and Services, Newcastle University). Janet manages Academic Services
Support & Development; Middleware; and Information Applications & Delivery, with a portfolio including
32
http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/people/manning.trevor (a. Feb 2009).
Page 13 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
Federated Access Management, institutional VLE and remote access and information delivery services.
Jackie Wickham (Service Manager, Intute Health & Life Sciences). Jackie is experienced in metadata
management, cataloguing consistency, information literacy, search strategies and vocabularies (including
AIRDIP and ACETS). She leads for Intute on performance management (including web analytics) and Web 2.0
type integration tools. Intute: HLS is also involved in contributing metadata in organic agriculture resources to a
cross European initiative: Organic.Edunet
Dr Jane Williams (Director e-learning (medicine), University of Bristol). Jane is responsible for the
development of technology-enhanced learning for the UG medical programme and elearning representative for
the Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry. Key areas of expertise include the of role e-learning within teaching and
learning, effective use of visual media and associated ethical and legal issues.
Page 14 of 16
HEFCE/Academy/JISC 14-08 Subject Strand Proposal: OOER, Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
4
Appendix Three: FOI Withheld Information Form
We would like JISC and the Academy to consider withholding the following sections or paragraphs from
disclosure, should the contents of this proposal be requested under the Freedom of Information Act, or if we
are successful in our bid for funding and our project proposal is made available on JISC’s website.
We acknowledge that the FOI Withheld Information Form is of indicative value only and that JISC and the
Academy may nevertheless be obliged to disclose this information in accordance with the requirements of the
Act. We acknowledge that the final decision on disclosure rests with JISC and the Academy.
Section / Paragraph No.
1.11 Budget, IPR, Licensing and Value for
Money on page 8 above.
33
Relevant exemption from disclosure under
FOI
33
Section 40: Personal information .
http://www.ico.gov.uk/ (a. Feb 2009).
Page 15 of 16
Justification
Contains salary information relating to specific
individuals.