1. business and industrial
2. business operations
3. management
4. project management

eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching Project Document Cover Sheet
Project Information Project Acronym Project Title eBioLabs Start Date Lead Institution Project Director Project Manager & contact details Partner Institutions Project Web URL Programme Name (and number) Programme Manager 1st Nov.2008 End Date 31st Oct. 2010 University of Bristol Gus Cameron Gus Cameron, School of Medical Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TD www.bristol.ac.uk/ebiolabs and http://ebl.soms.bris.ac.uk/ (test site) Transforming Curriculum Delivery Through Technology 08/08 eBioLabs: A personalised virtual environment to support laboratorybased bioscience.
Document Title Reporting Period Author(s) & project role Date URL Access Lisa Gray Document Name Project Plan Q1 09 Dr Gus Cameron 1st May 2009 Filename eBiolabs Project Plan Q1 09.docx Project and JISC internal and for General dissemination Document History Version Draft Feb ‘09 Date Feb 09 Comments Revised following feedback from JISC, Inspire Research, eBiolabs team members and other stakeholders eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching eBioLabs Project Plan 1. Background eBioLabs is a personalised virtual environment to support laboratory‐based bioscience. It aspires to be an exemplar of best practice demonstrating what can be achieved in this field, inspiring and enabling others to develop and deliver better teaching and learning in the laboratory. Learners entering degree‐level bioscience courses today come from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences and not all have had access to the appropriate resources or opportunities required to equip them for effective learning in the laboratory. This is especially apparent in the biosciences where the cost/benefit ratio of teaching laboratory‐based skills has been brought into sharp focus by the change in the set of skills required by graduates, large numbers of who leave the biosciences on graduation, coupled with the decreasing unit of resource available for each student. Learners entering HE today have a wider range of knowledge, skills, motivations and aspirations than was previously the case and this, coupled to the reduced experience of practical work in school, may contribute to year 1 students being ill‐prepared for the experience of practical sessions at university. As a result of these factors the amount and type of laboratory work carried out and the engagement of learners with practical work has been identified as one of the key issues in teaching bioscience; it is widely recognised that far too many students engage in passive learning behaviour during what should be some of the most active, interesting and discovery‐led sessions in their university careers. Laboratory‐based learning sessions (colloquially known as “practicals”) suffer from pronounced and unique diseconomies of scale. This has led to many institutions and departments simply reducing the quantity or quality of laboratory sessions in a process of managed decline and a 2007 HEA Centre for Bioscience report i painted a picture of laboratory classes that was a long way from the vibrant learning opportunity they have the potential to be. The ongoing reduction in quality of undergraduate laboratory training has led to employers reporting ii,iii,iv a shortage of graduates with appropriate laboratory skills and aptitudes; in response to this the HEA Centre for Bioscience has held at least one workshop v aimed at improving and spreading best practice. It is eBiolabs’ contention that providing high quality, coherent and comprehensive resources that directly address the major issues encountered by students and staff in the laboratory will help to stem the decline of laboratory‐based teaching. 2. Aims and Objectives. Overall Aim. To develop and validate a new model for delivering laboratory‐based bioscience courses based around a personalised virtual environment. To evaluate both the individual components and the totality of eBiolabs and to refine and extend the model as required. • To engage with major project stakeholders, especially Academic Staff, Students, Technicians and Postgraduate Demonstrators (who do much of the teaching and most of the assessing). To identify and engage with other groups of stakeholders such as the wider bioscience community and others who may be interested in our pedagogical and technical approach. • To baseline our project by evaluating the current state of practicals as experienced by the different stakeholders. Much anecdotal evidence suggests that we are often not meeting our Learning Objectives in laboratory sessions, if not, why not? Can we measure this? • To test our hypothesis that, by changing our delivery method so that we front‐load student effort, we can improve the outcomes of laboratory sessions for both students and staff. • To test our hypothesis that, by changing our delivery method so that we assess and return student work generated in the laboratory on‐line, we can improve the outcomes of laboratory sessions for both students and staff; specifically can we improve the quality and consistency of feedback without increasing staff time? • To develop a “Marks and Absences” database that can be used not only to record data generated by laboratory classes but also data from tutorials and other small group sessions. This work is funded as part of eBiolabs by UoB. eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching •
•
•
•
•
•
•
To identify specific and general strategies, processes and methods to help us to meet our Learning Objectives in an efficient and user‐friendly manner. To investigate how technology can be used to help implement the changes recommended as a result of the above, first do no harm! To develop the technical systems that will allow us to implement the changes identified. To work with stakeholders to develop the teaching and learning materials in a format suitable for the technology. This work is funded as part of eBiolabs by UoB. To specify, deploy and test the hardware, software and firmware required for the project. Specifically to build a system that can speedily serve hundreds of concurrent users with minimal downtime and a low annual maintenance requirement. To evaluate the success of our work, both quantitatively (improved student satisfaction scores, reduced time spent marking and administrating, improved practical marks?) and qualitatively by interviews and focus groups with stakeholders. To disseminate our work. To test our hypothesis that eBioLabs will be applicable and attractive to courses both within and outside the University of Bristol. 3. Overall Approach. 3.1. In planning this project we have been heavily influenced by the work of the two University of Bristol CETLs, Applied and Integrated Medical Sciences (AIMS) in the Departments of Physiology and pharmacology and Anatomy, and ChemLabS in the Department of Chemistry. Both CETLs have focussed on the delivery of practical techniques and skills. AIMS has introduced the use of Human Patient Simulators vi to model a wide range of physiological, pharmacological and pathological states and has developed a virtual microscope vii to assist with the delivery of courses in histology. The ChemLabS CETL comprises a £20M refurbishment of undergraduate chemistry teaching at Bristol that included the redevelopment of the laboratories and a root‐and‐branch review of all undergraduate teaching activities. As part of this review a “Dynamic Laboratory Manual” was produced to put information associated with undergraduate experiments in chemistry online. The eBiolabs approach is to take the ethos and some of the techniques trialled by the two CETLs and apply it to the delivery of laboratory‐based bioscience. 3.2. In our experience, when teaching staff are asked to identify the crux of the problem with laboratory sessions it almost always boils down to “students failing to prepare”. In this context “failing to prepare” means that when students do arrive in the laboratory it is often the first time they have thought about what the session is trying to achieve. In large and often impersonal laboratories students tend to cling to their printed instructions as if they are lifebuoys, treating them as recipes to be blindly followed and the session as something to struggle through as quickly as possible. The second biggest problem reported to us is time associated with marking assessments, meaning that instead of the full “laboratory write‐up” consisting of several pages of prose students are now required to fill out “pro‐forma” answer sheets that encourage plagiarism. 3.3. Pre‐laboratory. eBiolabs intends to encourage students to apply the brunt of their effort before the laboratory session by releasing high quality information online two or three days before the session along with formative assessments designed to test students understanding. Compliance will be enforced at the start of the session by teaching staff who will log on to the eBiolabs servers (using SSO) and view a personalised screen containing the results of learners’ pre‐laboratory assessments. The penalty for non‐compliance will be decided by the relevant academic board. The eBiolabs laboratory manuals will contain existing content translated and edited for consistency by eBiolabs staff in conjunction with academics. In many experiments there will be core skills and techniques that may benefit from a visual media such as video or animation and these will be developed by the University as part of their contribution to the eBiolabs project. A major part of the concept of eBiolabs is recognising the changing pattern of student learning and integrating these new practices into the laboratory process. For example, the pre‐laboratory information will contain eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching hyperlinks to further sources of information and we will investigate ways in which learners can tag resources they find particularly relevant. 3.4. In‐laboratory. It is not within the scope of eBiolabs to alter the scientific content of the laboratory experiments, nor is it an eBiolabs priority to impose restrictions on how students are expected to submit work, other than to say it must be submitted electronically. In certain cases there will be good reasons to provide an electronic form version of the existing answer sheet, as this may allow us to free up staff time by, for example, automatically assessing quantitative data, but in general teaching staff will be free to choose the file format they prefer, for example a Word document or an Excel file, or, in some cases, a file from a bespoke piece of scientific software. The time of submission will be recorded (and we will investigate ways of checking for plagiarism) and work allocated to named staff members. We will investigate methods of allocating bench positions within the laboratory to learners and staff members in an attempt to reduce the anonymity we believe laboratories suffer from at present and, if this is possible, make sure submitted work is directed to the appropriate staff member. 3.5. Post‐laboratory. When teaching staff log on to eBiolabs post‐session they will be presented with the work that needs assessing and a method of recording the marks allocated to learners. Once the work has been assessed, the system will inform learners that they have feedback waiting for them when they next log in. Long experience has taught us that learners tend to make similar types of mistakes meaning that evaluators find they have to correct the same mistake and hence give the same feedback multiple times. As most undergraduate practical work is marked by postgraduate demonstrators whose prime motivation is to complete their degree marking scripts is seen as a chore and many postgraduates have told us that they are not marking as consistently as they could by the end of a long marking session. Marking scripts automatically gives us the opportunity to remove the monotony and free up staff to give higher level feedback. At present marking a typical laboratory session occupies around ten hours of staff time hence we have the chance to make a large impact on the administrative burden. On top of this, the administrative burden associated with collecting in, handing back and collating marks generated by the 20,000 pieces of student work generated annually within the School of Medical Science by laboratory sessions inevitably means that errors do occur with regrettable results. Electronic submission, evaluation and return gives us the opportunity to make the current system much more efficient. eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching 4. Learner uses
eBioLabs to revisit areas
causing difficulty.
5. Learner uses
eBioLabs to
communicate with
peers and plan
session.
3. Learner checks
knowledge and skills using
diagnostic selfassessments.
2. Learner logs into
eBioLabs and uses the
material to research the
upcoming laboratory
session.
Pre-Lab
6. Learner enters lab
session with confidence
having assessed their
knowledge and skills.
1. Curriculum design and
implementation team place
background material and
assessments into eBioLabs.
7. Instructor check
results of pre-lab
assessments before
and/or during the lab
session.
In-Lab
8. Instructor
identifies learners
having problems
with the material and
takes remedial
action.
9. Learner uploads
experimental results into
their e-portfolio during
and after the lab session.
13. Senior instructor
10. Learners use eBioLabs to
engages in high level
share data and analyse
analysis using data export
experimental results.
tools within eBioLabs.
Modifications are made to
the curriculum as
Post-Lab
11. Learner completes
necessary.
the laboratory report
and emails their
personal instructor.
12. Instructor logs
on to the e-portfolio,
assesses the work
and leaves
feedback.
Figure 1. The eBiolabs activity cycle
3.6. Technology and portfolios. eBiolabs is built using Moodle 1 . Currently the University of Bristol’s official VLE is Blackboard 2 (although this is under review) hence our decision to use a different platform has had to be a positive choice. We have taken this decision, not only because Moodle is open source and hence our development efforts can be disseminated more readily, but also because we need to customise the VLE in order to obtain the functionality we require and customisation of the proprietary Blackboard is difficult. For example one part of this project (a part funded by UoB) aims to develop a traceable marking system whereby student marks can be altered and a record kept of when and by whom. This functionality will need to be custom coded into a novel grade book module. Within the University both the Centre for Deaf Studies 3 and ChemLabS have used Moodle installations and are pleased with the results. In some cases the ability to code extra functionality has been critical to their ability to interact with existing databases. However, our Moodle installation will be largely based on standard modules, the added value really lies in we will organise and use the modules to make them fit for purpose. The functionality we demand of a student e‐
portfolio consists of a record of the student’s laboratory work, which will be accessible from within eBioLabs (laboratory reports will have been uploaded by the student, as will feedback from markers. The results of on‐line quizzes will be included within the portfolio and the student will be given the 1
http://moodle.org/ http://www.blackboard.com/ 3
http://www.bris.ac.uk/deaf/ 2
eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching opportunity to comment on their work, forming some kind of reflective diary). The principle aim of the portfolio here is to allow staff, and especially personal tutors, to examine their tutees progress easily and quickly form the comfort of their own desktop. Tutors will be able to use the portfolio as a basis for discussions with the student and as a way of spotting problems and offering guidance. We will evaluate currently available portfolios (especially Mahara 4 ) to see if they have anything to offer us with respect to eBiolabs but a prime concern for the eBiolabs team is that barriers to use should be minimal and many current e‐portfolios, often due to their powerful features, have steep learning curves and for this project, unnecessary feature‐sets . The technology we will deploy to facilitate better marking and feedback will have to be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis. In some instances it may be possible to do all the assessment electronically using on‐line quizzes within Moodle (or QuestionMark Perception from with eBioLabs for example). In most cases however some part of the assessment will have to be done by hand due to the nature of the material to be assessed. We need to identify the most pragmatic method of coping with this mixture of object types and the best technology for the purpose. This decision can only be taken when we have finalised the assessment, and is a decision to be taken in consultation with expert academics and students. eBioLabs will be a relatively high stakes installation, if the system were to crash or be unavailable due to maintenance at times when students and staff had to log on the consequences might extend to having to cancel classes. If the system were to become corrupt it might be possible to lose thousands of pieces of data ‐ both marks and student work. For this reason we need to ensure that the system we deploy has fail‐safes engineered in. 4. Project outputs.
Content. In 2009/10 we will be using eBiolabs to deploy a full undergraduate first year laboratory‐
based course in Biochemistry. This will take the form of experiments based around the current University of Bristol “1G” Biochemistry Unit. In 2008/9 the 1G experiments were: 1. Buffers and pH 2. Spectrophotometers 3. Protein Purification 4. DNA and Protein Structure 5. Determination of the Km of LDH for pyruvate 6. Carbohydrate Chemistry 7. Glycolysis in Yeast 8. Red Cell Membranes 9. Mitochondrial Respiration 10. Incorporation of 14C glycine into E.coli We anticipate that in 2009/10 the experiments delivered by eBioLabs will be similar to these. The University is committed to producing a product whose design is high quality and professional as we believe that this instils confidence in users. For this reason we have allocated additional UoB resources to ensure that at least six of the above experiments will have professionally‐commissioned graphics and supporting multimedia such as animations and video. The remaining experiments will be produced from the existing Word documents using Course Genie (Wimba) and upgraded as and when resources allow. The costs, time and skills required to do this will be an important finding for the sustainability of the project. Experiments will consist of a) academic content that provides the information required by the student to succeed, b) self assessment objects, such as on‐line quizzes, designed to ensure that the student is i) engaging with the content and ii) comprehending the content . Satisfactory completion of the self‐assessment objects will be a pre‐requisite for the laboratory experiments; the exercises will be automatically marked and the results available to staff through the Marks and Absences module of eBIolabs. Finally each experiment will have an 4
http://mahara.org/ eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching associated post‐laboratory assessment. The nature of this assessment will vary as dictated by the experiment but a prime consideration is to a) allow automated marking and feedback whenever possible and b) a low technical barrier to use. These two aims may conflict with each other and we will need to experiment with different delivery methods to find the appropriate balance. Technical outputs. A Moodle installation (including custom modules) that will enable pre‐session, in‐session and post‐session content to be delivered to and received from students and staff, alongside formative and summative assessments. A “Marks and Absences” gradebook will be developed that builds upon current academic practice and powers student portfolios; this will enable staff to observe student achievement at the click of a mouse and also allow for an electronic attendance register that will automatically inform key people if students miss scheduled sessions. Other technical outputs will consist of novel methods of assessing laboratory experiments that balance ease of use with automated marking and feedback. Examples of these are customised Moodle modules and / or Visual Basic scripts that automate tasks within Microsoft Office. Reports and Publications. We will be submitting reports to JISC as detailed in the Workpackages. These will include information on why we did things, how we did them, and how well they worked. Our evaluation programme is dedicated to a) measuring the current status quo and b) quantifying the benefits of our project. This work will provide the data required for our evaluation reports. Other reports (and publications) will be aimed at specific audiences. For example our Moodle server implementation is, as far as our computer support officers have been able to ascertain, novel and will be of interest to others looking to do something similar. One of the major restrictions concerning the running of laboratory classes is how to properly assess them so our solutions to this problem can form the basis of for case studies. The large amount of interest currently surrounding laboratory based science should ensure that our publications find a ready outlet and willing audience, for evidence of this see the latest HEA Centre for Bioscience Newsletter that is dedicated solely to laboratory skills5 . Personalised use of learning technology. Anecdotally, one of the criticisms of laboratory classes at present is that students find them impersonal and anonymous. We wish to explore the use of technology to increase the sense of belonging and ownership among learners. Although we do not wish to even attempt to supplant the use of social networking sites currently used by our learners, believing that it would be ultimately futile or even patronising to try to compete, some features may be of benefit. We will be looking at ways of including social bookmarking and other peer‐to‐peer communication protocols within eBiolabs; the learners will be given the opportunity to comment on their work, and on ours too: we hope to capture the student experience and use it to increase our knowledge of how they are interacting with the system. On a more prosaic note we hope to experiment with the use of SMS for keeping learners informed of late‐breaking news and events. All of the above will require us to develop systems that allow learners to update their personal profile. However we wish to avoid students having to duplicate effort so we need to make sure we are in step with other University of Bristol database initiatives and not asking users to enter the same information into different systems. The university is presently assessing different generic e‐
portfolio products but is very unlikely to implement an institution‐wide solution before the eBiolabs goes live in Autumn 2009. Using Moodle the obvious choice for us is to look at Mahara 6 which we will be examining closely to see if it offers benefits to our students in the context of this project. Assessment of a novel Learning Design Model. We are becoming convinced that our Dynamic Laboratory Manual is actually a generic model for learning. It has been suggested that a more appropriate name would be “Dynamic Learning Model”. Talking to educators from many different fields it has become apparent that they all need to a) make sure that learners are better prepared 5
6
http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/bulletin.aspx http://mahara.org/ eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching for non‐didactic learning sessions b) reduce the assessment burden and c) improve the quality of feedback. Although much e‐learning has up to now concentrated on its power to facilitate distance‐
learning we believe that a neglected area is the use of technology to improve self‐directed learning, especially with regard to the timeliness of learning. This is a hypothesis that we will be developing as the project progresses and as our evaluation and dissemination programmes gather pace; the results will be included in appropriate reports. Dissemination can be categorised into i) the academic content, specifically six laboratory sessions in Biochemistry including pre‐laboratory, in‐laboratory and post‐laboratory content; and ii) a Moodle 2.0 installation designed to deliver the academic content. By “delivery” we are implicitly including all staff‐student, student‐student and user‐content interactions which will be facilitated by the VLE. The installation will include the facility for recording learner achievement as well as tools, such as quizzes and e‐portfolios, for self‐evaluation and assessment. This software, which lies at the heart of eBioLabs, will be designed from the outset to be as flexible, portable and sustainable as possible; consequently we will be using industry‐standard open‐source technologies wherever practical. If using open source solutions is not possible the cost of licensing the application will be a major deciding factor prior to its adoption. By keeping a watchful eye on issues of sustainability and dissemination, eBioLabs software will be capable of being updated and maintained by non‐
specialists with the minimum of training. We believe that the benefits deriving from our outputs will be tangible across a wide spectrum of HE and FE activities. We will also provide detailed evaluation of student opinion surrounding laboratory based bioscience both before and after eBiolabs is introduced based on the data collected by surveying over 600 first year bioscience undergraduates. We will also feedback opinion from academic staff and postgraduate demonstrators’ focus groups concerning individual learning sessions. We expect to be able to provide evidence for whether this model provides a more engaged learner cohort with a better understanding of practical science and skills that will help them develop as proactive lifelong learners. Evidence of tangible administrative benefits: a reduced administrative burden with fewer marking and recording errors. Postgraduate instructors with better developed transferable and interpersonal skills. 5. Project outcomes. This is a pilot project intended to test the concept of integrated online laboratory manuals for the delivery of undergraduate level bioscience. To that end we will develop a personalised virtual laboratory space and will: • Encourage the learners to interact with educational material in advance of the laboratory session thereby increasing understanding and improving the learning outcomes of the session. • Reduce the administrative burden associated with assessment of the laboratory sessions by placing submission, marking, return and feedback online. • Allow staff to easily track student progress from any web enabled computer. • Enable the exploration of progressive in‐lab marking methods, such as short viva voce assessments and spot tests in practical skills by providing the electronic systems required to administer said assessments. • Develop the use in innovative post‐laboratory assessment methods using technology to assist marking consistency and improve the feedback quality. • Encourage learners to reflect by providing better quality feedback and a space for learners to comment on their performance. • By increasing comprehension learner performance will improve in subject areas related to the laboratory sessions. 6. Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder Interest / stake Importance / comments Department of eBiolabs has targeted Buy‐in is critical for success. We eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching Biochemistry academic staff Department of Biochemistry laboratory technical staff. Student users of eBiolabs. Post‐graduate laboratory demonstrators Faculty staff outside of the Department of Biochemistry. UoB Faculties other than the Faculty of Medical and Veterinary Science. Academic bioscience community. Industrial bioscience community Department of Biochemistry laboratory sessions for the pilot scheme. These staff will be the first to use the system. targeted leaders and key opinion formers during the development of the bid and are relying on peer‐pressure to encourage others to follow their lead. These stakeholders will be ambassadors and champions for the project. Although eBiolabs is not Medium. If these staff are unhappy about redesigning laboratory with the new working practices their activities technical staff will discontent could become infectious. see some difference to their working practices (electronic attendance registers for example). Users of eBiolabs. Critical. To succeed eBiolabs must both engage the learners’ interest and be relevant to their needs. We must be prepared to learn from this group and amend our practice accordingly. Users of eBiolabs. Require Very high. This group will be using better prepared and more eBiolabs to mark student work and have engaged learners along with some of the most useful insights into a reduced administrative the learner experience. If we are burden which will allow meeting our learning outcomes this them to focus on providing group will be among the first to know. high level instruction and feedback. Their courses are the next Very high. If eBiolabs is a generic natural target for eBiolabs. solution it should be possible to interest these departments in using the system. However, “not‐invented‐here” and inter‐departmental rivalry may be problematic in some areas. Non‐bioscience courses may Fairly high. Other workshop based find the learning models and courses are obvious candidates for technology developed as a adopting the system, but can eBiolabs part of eBiolabs are of use. be used to support archaeology and geography field‐work? Or language tutorials? Or studio‐based art seminars? Teaching laboratory based High. If our expectations are met the bioscience is one of the most community will engage with the project, problematic areas for latter allowing extension of the eBiolabs day institutions. Proof of model into other institutions. But we concept that the eBiolabs need to find out how they would like to model improves learning implement eBiolabs (this feeds into outcomes while reducing the dissemination and evaluation activities). administrative burden would be of great importance. Employers are concerned High. Industrialists are opinion formers that graduates lack practical whose support will encourage the skills. eBiolabs model to be adopted and extended. We have extensive contacts eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching that we will be exploiting at appropriate times as the project progresses. We believe that our Dynamic Medium high. An aim of this project is Learning Model is applicable to spread best practice throughout the to many subjects. HE and FE community. Funders. Very high. JISC have an obligation to ensure projects have successful outcomes. Disseminators of best High. We need to ensure we are not practice. duplicating effort and at the same time that this group will act as ambassadors and champions for the project. Require better prepared and Very high. These stakeholders will act more engaged learners along as ambassadors and champions for the with a reduced project. administrative burden which will allow them to focus on providing high level instruction and feedback. Wider academic community. JISC e‐learning technologists. Teaching staff. 7. Risk analysis Probability
Risk
(1-5)
2
Severity
(1-5)
3
Score
(P x S)
6
Technical
aspects too
complex.
Partnership fails
to work
effectively.
1
4
4
2
4
8
Timescales
2
4
8
Low learner
engagement
2
5
10
Low stakeholder
(non-learner)
engagement
2
5
10
Over ambition
3
2
6
Solution
becomes subject
or institution
specific
2
5
10
Staffing issues
Action to prevent and/or mitigate risk
Most key staff are already in post.
Expertise is widespread and replacements
are available if necessary.
Technology being used is well-understood
and similar to previous work. We will seek
appropriate and pragmatic solutions.
Effective project management techniques
will be used to ensure difficulties are
resolved and targets are met in a timely
manner. IPR issues need to be properly
met in partnership agreements. We will be
using contracts developed under the
guidance of our legal team.
The project will follow an iterative model to
ensure any problems are addressed at the
earliest opportunity. User functionality will
be the priority. However, the team’s track
record of meeting deadlines is excellent.
Effective consultancy at all stages of the
project. Close monitoring of material
delivery and staff training programme.
Effective consultation throughout the project
lifespan coupled to the resolute and
professional dissemination of a shared
vision.
This project will only tackle a limited and
defined area of the curriculum. The
management group will need to be aware of
the potential for scope creep.
Stakeholders from other subject areas and
institutions will be included on the
management team and consulted
throughout.
eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching 8. Standards. The eBiolabs VLE will be designed from the outset to be based on open‐standards and as transferable as possible, see the table below for further details of the technologies we intend to use. Wherever possible we aim to use standards recommended by the JISC Standards Catalogue (http://standards‐catalogue.ukoln.ac.uk/index/Standards_Entries). Name of standard or Version Notes specification Web standards Image standards Multimedia Standards Others Apache, PHP, MySQL will be used on a Unix installation to power the Moodle VLE which is itself scripted in PHP. All developments of and enhancements to Moodle will be scripted in PHP. Content will be primarily HTML with static graphics supplemented by FLASH and video as appropriate (see below). As per JISC Standard Catalogue. Primarily jpg. As per JISC Standard Catalogue. Content populating the Moodle VLE may contain Adobe Flash animations and videos. Assessments may be submitted by learners in for form of Microsoft Office Word or Excel documents. We are experimenting with Visual Basic scripts that reduce the assessment burden associated with these. 9. Technical development. eBiolabs is not about developing new technology, it is about applying appropriate technology to enable us to achieve our goals. Our technical development cycle is dependent on the close collaboration of team members with strengths in a) delivering undergraduate laboratory sessions under the current regime, b) analysing the skills and competencies required by today’s learners, c) technical skills in the web technologies required to develop and maintain a Moodle‐based VLE, d) developing multimedia applications. No one of these strengths is more important than another, it is our vision and ability to pull together and deploy existing technologies that will determine the success of eBiolabs. The eBiolabs activity cycle is encapsulated by Figure 1 above, in the run up to eBiolabs going live, this cycle will be simulated by team members and co‐opted staff and students playing the various roles in order to close the feedback loop. 10. Intellectual Property Rights. The IPR of this project will reside with the University of Bristol. However, all reports, finding and outputs funded by JISC will be shared in perpetuity with the community. Project resources. 11. Project partners. Our technology partners are Learning Science ltd. Their role is to work as a part of the eBioLabs team helping us develop the technology underpinning the project. They have extensive experience developing Moodle applications and have the necessary expertise with the multimedia formats which will be used for content development and translation (note the latter is paid for by UoB as part of their project contribution). eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching 12. Project Management. Project management will follow the JISC guidelines viii and will report to the eBiolabs steering group. The management of the project will be under the aegis of the Department of Biochemistry and report to the Departmental Teaching Committee and thence the Departmental Management Committee. Team meetings will be scheduled weekly and Key Staff as listed below invited to attend plus any other people deemed necessary, for example it is envisaged that postgraduate demonstrators, students and computer support and laboratory technicians will be asked to attend on occasion to contribute their specialist areas of knowledge. Learning Science Ltd will report to the Director meetings on a weekly basis either at the team meeting or exceptionally through other means. 12.1. Key Staff. The team we have assembled includes practicing scientists who have decades of experience teaching and practicing laboratory‐based science (and who all have experience developing e‐learning material), and e‐learning specialists who have the relevant technical expertise and scientific background. The team have had previous experience in managing projects of this nature or larger. 12.1.1 Dr Gus Cameron (Research Fellow, Department of Biochemistry, University of Bristol). Gus will be project coordinator. Before taking up his post at Bristol Dr Cameron taught a diverse learner cohort at South Bank University for five years. This was in addition to spending three years teaching at a FE college where he developed and delivered a highly successful and innovative Biochemistry course to learners from non‐traditional backgrounds. Dr Cameron has been intimately involved in course management and curriculum redesigns and has an on‐going commitment to widening participation. Dr Cameron has recently held a faculty‐wide e‐learning role while still remaining active in his research laboratory. Dr Cameron has years of experience as project manager of a multinational public‐private drug discovery project whose members spread across two countries and three sites. He can justifiably claim to have an excellent understanding of the needs of the many types of stakeholders impacted by this project. 12.1.2. Dr Paul Wyatt (Director of Bristol ChemLabS). Paul will act as senior consultant on the eBioLabs project. As well as being involved in laboratory design, IT hardware and laboratory infrastructure, Paul’s major role has been in the educational design of the new labs. He chaired a Working Party which considered the skills students needed, the experiments they needed to do, the timetable and the integration of the different years, the new role of demonstrators and the modes of assessment. For the first time, representatives from different Sections of the School literally sat round a table to discuss what was wanted for the students’ laboratory experience in what was the most significant root‐and‐branch rethink of practical laboratories that the School has ever undertaken. Dr Wyatt was responsible for the pedagogic shift that has been made in the School of Chemistry This radical, integrated, rethink started with considering the skills the students needed to have by the end of each year. The period when students think about the experiment was reconsidered (to be before rather than after the lab) as was the period when students are assessed (to be during rather than after the lab). These approaches now ensure that the student gets the most from the lab and is assessed on the work they do rather than their ability to write up after the event. 12.1.3. Dr Tom Podesta (Teaching Laboratory Manager, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol). Tom will coordinate the skills mapping required to convert the current laboratory curriculum into the eBioLabs vision. Dr Podesta is an expert in the design and implementation of practical science classes and an integral member of the ChemLabS CETL team. He was a key member of the working party responsible for the recent redesign of the Bristol BSc Chemistry curriculum. As well as advising the group on all aspects he was responsible for coordinating the output from the groups to produce a selection of practical courses. He was involved in all aspect from writing the eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching experiments, resourcing the equipment through to training the demonstrators. He has also been deeply involved in the design and production of electronic teaching material. 12.1.4. Suzi Wells (e‐learning Support Office, Faculty of Science, University of Bristol). Suzi will bring pedagolical e‐learning expertise to the project. Suzi is the e‐Learning Officer for the Faculty of Science at the University of Bristol, a post she began in November 2006. Her work involves promoting and supporting e‐learning within the science faculty at Bristol. Before working at Bristol she was a consultant / project manager at Futuate, a company specialising in the use of e‐learning and web technologies. Her work at Futurate included project management for clients including the Association for Learning Technology and the South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Agency, being on the evaluation team for the JISC Distributed eLearning Tools strand and usability consultancy for the Museums Libraries and Archive Council and the Natural History Museum. 12.1.5. New Appointment (e‐Learning Developer). A new position is being funded by the School of Medical Sciences, University of Bristol, to help accelerate the development of e‐learning projects. The incumbent will spend 50% of their time on the eBioLabs project developing and delivering material and mapping the present curriculum onto the eBioLabs vision. 12.1.6. Dr John Eastman (Learning Science Ltd). John will lead the technical design and implementation of the system. John has previously worked with us on the ChemLabS CETL and has a background as a research chemist and in e‐learning systems development. John is an expert in the design and scripting of Moodle‐based e‐learning systems. 12.1.7. Katy Reford (Learning Science Ltd). Katy studied for four years as a medical student within the University of Bristol before graduating with a degree in Anatomy. Having recently been through the student experience within the School of Medical Sciences she is ideally placed to work as a developer and researcher on the eBiolabs project. 12.1.8. Dr Kelly Moule (Senior Tutor, Department of Biochemistry, University of Bristol). Kelly represents a key stakeholder community as she is Unit Organiser of the Biochemistry 1G course. Kelly will provide pedagogical input and act as a conduit to senior management. 12.1.9. Graeme Cappi (Systems Manager, School of Medical Sciences, University of Bristol). Graeme is our systems manager and will be responsible for ensuring that the eBiolabs servers are fit for purpose. 12.2 Steering Group The steering group will consist of the key staff members listed above plus: • Dr Pete Lund (Deputy Head of Academic Programmes, School of Bioscience, University of Birmingham). • Dr Neil Morgan (Senior lecturer, School of Applied Science, London South Bank University). • Dr Paul England (Industrial advisor, ex GlaxoSmithKline and numerous other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies). • Professor Nick Normal (Chief Executive, ChemLabS CETL). • Prof Judy Harris (Chief Executive, AIMS CETL). • Gill Clarke (Director of Teaching Support Unit, University of Bristol) • Dr John Davis (Academic Director of e‐Learning, University of Bristol) • Dr Caroline Mackinnon (postgraduate researcher, University of Bristol) • Prof. George Banting (Head of Department of Biochemistry, University of Bristol) • Prof. Andrew Halestrap (Head of Teaching of Biochemistry, University of Bristol) eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching The steering group will meet at key times throughout the projects’ life. To date we have held a Steering Group meeting to discuss early plans (February 25th, 2009, minutes available on request) and decided that another should be held shortly before the project goes live in autumn 2009. Thereafter meetings will be held three or four times per year as deemed appropriate by the Steering Group. 13. Programme Support. Support will be requested from the Programme Manager, Critical Friend and CAMEL group as and when required. 14. Budget. See Appendix A. The budget requested is identical to that agreed with JISC in October 2008 with the exception that 0.3 FTE for Staff Time (Evaluation) has been moved from Directly Allocated to Directly Incurred. The total amount requested has not changed and this change is an administrative one to correct an oversight in the original document. Detailed Project Planning
15. Workpackages. See Appendix B eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching 16. Evaluation Plan See also Appendix B, Workpackages, for details of timings and responsibilities Timing Factor to Evaluate Questions to Address Method(s) Q1 09 Student opinions What do learners like SpeedQuest and attitudes and dislike about the optically marked towards laboratory existing laboratory questionnaires. sessions. sessions. Q1 09 Post graduate What do Focus groups, demonstrator demonstrators like individual opinions and and dislike about the interviews. attitudes towards existing laboratory laboratory sessions. sessions. Q1 09 Academic staff What do academic Interviews, opinions and staff like and dislike meetings. attitudes towards about the existing laboratory laboratory sessions. sessions. Q1/Q2 Student opinions What do learners like Focus groups, 09 and attitudes and dislike about the individual towards laboratory existing laboratory interviews. sessions. sessions. Q1 09 / VLE workflows and How best to manage Questionnaires, Q4 10 user interfaces staff and learner meetings, focus workflows groups, interviews. Q2 09 / Server Are the eBiolabs Simulated load Q4 10 performance servers robust and testing speedy? Q3 09 Learner interaction Are the learners Analysis of pre‐
/Q4 10 with resources in preparing effectively? laboratory advance of assessment laboratory results. sessions. Questionnaires, Meetings, focus groups, interviews. Q3 09 / Administrative Has the administrative Meetings, focus Q4 10 burden. burden been groups, reduced? interviews. Q1 09 / Q4 10 Transferability of the eBiolabs model Can the eBiolabs model be widely distributed? Meetings, interviews, conferences. Measure of Success Good participation rate. Unambiguous data. Documented plan. Information that can be turned into action. Information that can be turned into action. Information that can be turned into action. User approval. Able to cope with estimated student numbers. Documented learning objectives met. Enhanced learner experience. Documented reduced administrative burden. Documented interest. What will success look like? How can we demonstrate success? From whom shall we collect the data? Responsibilities and timescales are included in the Appendix B, workpackages. i) The learner experience will be improved. For example learners will show better understanding of the experiments and better understanding of the lecture and tutorial material the experiments are eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching designed to support. How will this be measured? Æ Questionnaires, interviews and focus groups of learners, staff, technicians and postgraduate demonstrators. ii) Postgraduate demonstrator experience improved. For example less time spent engaged in repetitious low level tasks. How will this be measured? Æ interviews and focus groups of learners, staff, technicians and postgraduate demonstrators. ii) Academic staff experience improved. For example more time spent explaining higher level functions. How will this be measured? Æ interviews and focus groups of learners, staff, technicians and postgraduate demonstrators.. iii) Employer experience of graduates improved. For example graduate recruits are better prepared for practical laboratory work. How will this be measured? Æ This cannot be measured within the lifetime of this project. iv) Other departments (both at Bristol and beyond) commit to using the system. How will this be measured? Æ Dissemination activities and reports. v) Extra funding awarded to extend courses delivered by eBiolabs. How will this be measured? Æ In pounds and pence! 17. Quality Plan. Output VLE Timing Quality QA method(s) Evidence of Quality Quality tools criteria compliance responsibilities (if applicable) Ease of use Fitness for purpose Output Content Timing Quality criteria Fitness for purpose Pilot questionnaire Questionnaire results QA method(s) Evidence of compliance Pilot questionnaire Questionnaire results Strategic fit and embedding Output Timing Quality QA method(s) criteria Evidence of compliance Project Manager, Steering Group Quality responsibilities Quality tools (if applicable) Project Manager, Steering Group Quality responsibilities Quality tools (if applicable)
18. Dissemination Plan
Timing Dissemination Audience Purpose Key Message eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching Q3/09 Q3 10 Activity Staff training Academic staff, support staff, postgraduate demonstrators Members outwith the department and university Q1/09 Q4 10 Steering group Q1/09 Q4 10 Advocacy sessions Emails, phone and face to face. Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries representatives Q1 09 / Q4 10 Project website Global community Q1 09 / Q4 10 Advocacy sessions Academic/technical staff. Senior management Q2 09 / Q4 10 Questionnaire results Academic/technical staff. Senior management Q2 09 / Q4 10 Reports HE community Educate, inform , raise awareness Educate, inform , raise awareness, engage Educate, inform , raise awareness, engage Educate, inform , raise awareness, engage Educate, Inform, Engage, Promote Educate, Inform, Engage, Promote Inform Workflows and processes Potential benefits, generic system. What eBiolabs is achieving wrt practical skills. Potential benefits, generic system. Potential benefits, generic system. Education. To demonstrate tangible benefits . To share lessons learned and best practice 19. Exit and Sustainability Plans
We believe that eBiolabs will become invaluable to the Department of Biochemistry within the first year of use. As such resources will be found from existing budgets to sustain the project. We argue that if the resources are not forthcoming then it will be because eBiolabs did not have the impact we anticipate in which case there is no need to sustain it; thus the best way to ensure sustainability is to ensure that eBiolabs is a success. We believe that eBiolabs will save staff time and improve the student experience thus there will be a net cost to the Department of not maintaining it. Project Outputs Action for Take‐up & Embedding Action for Exit Embedding into Buy‐in from academic staff and Establish documentation and Departmental workflows management SOPs Project website Dissemination activities as detailed Commitment to maintaining it in Workpackages until 2013. Project Outputs Why Sustainable Scenarios for Taking Issues to Address Forward Moodle installation The year on year Ensure relevancy, ease of How to gather (VLE) administrative costs use, utility and currency resources to expand of maintaining the content? How to add eBiolabs servers is a functionality? fraction of an FTE Student created and has been content? guaranteed by the Faculty. eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching Cultural change Need to respond to future developments Continued advocacy Departmental, Faculty and University priorities. eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching Appendix A. Budget. April 08‐
March 09 £ Directly incurred costs Staff Costs Staff Time (Evaluation) Total Staff Costs [1] Non Staff Costs Consumables Travel & Subsistence Conferences, Courses & Training FTE 0.3
Directly allocated costs Staff Costs FTE Staff Time (Synthesis Project) Total Staff Costs [3] Estate Costs [4] Indirect Costs [5] TOTAL COSTS [6=1+2+3+4+5] 227
1,305
285
496 2,847 621 269 1,542 336 9,490
1,375
12,682
20,706 3,000 27,670 11,216 1,625 14,988 41,412
6,000
55,339
3,489
14,473
7,612 31,579 April 08‐
March 09 £ 0.54
April 10‐
March 11 £ TOTAL £ 27,471
20,461
15,224
63,156
992
5,693
1,242
Consultancy (Learning Science) Architecture, Design and Implementation Servers, licences and team laptop, Total Non Staff Costs [2] April 09‐
March 10 £ April 09‐
March 10 £ 6,280
7,777
3,278
7,494
7,422 9,191 7,153 16,351 45,705
April 10‐
March 11 £ 13,702 16,969 4,123 17,105 3,875 8,857 99,720 54,015 TOTAL £ 6,533
27,403
33,936
14,306
32,702
199,439
i “The Student View of 1st Year Laboratory Work in Biosciences”
Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) (2005) Sustaining the skills pipeline in the
pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical industries
iii Biosciences Federation (2005) Enthusing the next generation
iv SEMTA: The Sector Skills Council for Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies (2006). Labour
Market Survey Report
v 1st year practicals: their role in developing future bioscientists. Ian Hughes, Centre for Bioscience (2008).
ii
vi
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cetl/aims/hps/index.php eBiolabs:- integrated tools for laboratory teaching vii
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cetl/aims/virtualMicroscope/index.php viii
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/funding/project_management/projectmanagementguidelines.pdf Project Acronym: eBiolabs
Version: 1.0
Contact: GC
Date: May 09
JISC WORK PACKAGE
Before completing this template please note:
•
The Project Management Guidelines have detailed instructions for preparing project plans and work packages..
•
Please expand tables as appropriate.
•
Fill in the information for the header, e.g. project acronym, version, and date.
•
Text in italics is explanatory and should be deleted in completed documents.
WORKPACKAGES
1: Project Management
2: Baseline practice
3: Specifications
4: Hardware
5: Prototyping
6: Trialling
7: Training
8: Launch pilot
9: Develop
10. Disseminate
11: Evaluate, assess and
report
Project start date: 11-08
Project completion date: 10-10
Page 1 of 7
Document title: JISC Work Package
Last updated: April 2007
Mo
nt
h
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
11
08
12
08
01
09
02
09
03
09
04
09
05
09
06
09
07
09
08
09
09
09
10
09
11
09
12
09
01
10
02
10
03
10
04
10
05
10
06
10
07
10
08
10
09
10
10
10
Project Acronym:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Workpackage and activity
Earliest
start
date
Latest
completion
date
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
Duration: <nn> months
Milestone
Responsibility
YEAR 1
WORKPACKAGE 1: Project Management
Objective: Overall project management
1. Establish local team and begin weekly meetings
11-08
01-09
Assign staff
GC
2. Establish Steering Group
11-08
01-09
Assign membership
GC, local team
3. Establish financial arrangements
11-08
05-09
Agreement on budget arrangements
4. Establish Project Website
11-08
01-09
Project website
5. Compile and agree project plan
11-08
05-09
Draft plan, agreed plan
6. Convene steering group meeting
11-08
02-09
Establish shared vision, meeting minutes
7. Develop testing schedule
11-08
06-10
Schedule and manage beta testers and
evaluators
GC
01-09
02-09
Report on current student experience.
GC, TP
12-08
02-09
Reports on demonstrator experience of
laboratory practicals
KR
1
2
GC
SW
GC, PW, KM
3
GC
WORKPACKAGE 2: Baseline practice
Objective: Develop an understanding of current
practice, and quantify its advantages and
disadvantages
8. Survey current students. Questionnaires to all
first year Biochemistry students Units 1G (~230),
Medicine (~250), Dentistry (~80) and Vets (~120)
9. Hold ten focus groups with postgraduate
demonstrators (30 off, in groups of three).
Page 2 of 7
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Project Acronym:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Workpackage and activity
Earliest
start
date
Latest
completion
date
10. Focus groups with current undergraduates
12-08
06-09
11. Interviews with academic staff
11-08
12. Interviews with Laboratory technicians
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
GC, KR
06-09
Reports on current student experience
and needs
Minutes of interviews
04-09
06-09
Minutes of interviews
TP
13. Interviews with industry representatives
12-08
06-09
Minutes of interviews
PW
14. Interviews with representatives from other
institutions
15. Interviews with representatives of other
academic disciplines
12-08
06-09
Minutes of interviews
PW
12-08
06-09
Minutes of interviews
GC
16. Storyboard current laboratory sessions
11-08
02-09
Notes on current sessions
GC, JE
17. Storyboard an “ideal” eBiolabs laboratory session
01-09
03-09
TP, JE
18. Storyboard individual eBiolabs laboratory
sessions
19. Assess potential server loads and specify
hardware
01-09
06-09
11-08
01-09
Notes on different scenarios, ideas for
assessment and possible outcomes
Fully annotated laboratory scripts,
including assessments
Notes on hardware requirements
12-08
03-09
Notes on possible approaches
01-09
04-09
Functional servers - use for developing
eBiolabs.
KM
WORKPACKAGE 3: Specifications
Objective: Develop technical specifications and
workflows
4
GC, TP
GC, JE
WORKPACKAGE 4: Hardware
Objective: Specify install, test and monitor hardware
20. Specify hardware, establish how we can
guarantee 100% reliability.
21. Install servers and install Linux, Apache, MySQL
PHP and Modle
Page 3 of 7
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
GC, GCa
5
GCa
Project Acronym:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Workpackage and activity
Earliest
start
date
Latest
completion
date
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
01-09
10-10 and ad
infinitum
Functional servers fit for purpose.
23. Confirm, develop and deploy content
02-09
10-09
24. Develop workflows
02-09
10-09
Web pages containing experiments in
biochemistry.
Testable learning design model.
25. Develop and deploy “Marks and Absences”
system
26. Develop and deploy assessment methods and
technology
02-09
10-09
Database to record learner experience
GC, KM, JE
02-09
10-09
Methods for submitting and assessing
learner outputs.
GC, KM, JE,
27. Recruit beta testers
05-09
08-10
Beta testers in place
KM
28. Test content for clarity and purpose
06-09
10-09
Collated notes from testers
KM, KR
29. Test workflows for clarity and utility
06-09
10-09
Collated notes from testers
JE, SW
30. Test assessments for fitness for purpose
06-09
10-09
Collated notes from testers
KM, GC
31. Test Marks and Absences for fitness for purpose
06-09
10-09
Collated notes from testers
32. Test technology for stability and fitness for
purpose
33. Load test servers
05-09
10-09
Collated notes from testers
SW, GCa
07-09
10-09
Collated notes from testers
GCa
22. Monitor server performance
GCa
WORKPACKAGE 5: Prototyping
Objective: Prototype eBiolabs
6
GC, KM, JE
GC, KM, JE
WORKPACKAGE 6: Trialling
Objective: To beta-test eBiolabs
Page 4 of 7
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Project Acronym:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Workpackage and activity
Earliest
start
date
Latest
completion
date
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
WORKPACKAGE 7: Training
Objective: To train staff in the purpose and use of
eBiolabs
34. Schedule training sessions for academic staff
07-09
10-10
Timetabled sessions
KM
35. Deliver training sessions for academic staff
07-09
10-10
Trained staff
KM, SW
36. Schedule training sessions for post graduate
demonstrators
37. Deliver training sessions for post graduate
demonstrators
38. Schedule training sessions for technical staff
07-09
10-10
Timetabled sessions
KM
07-09
10-10
Trained staff
TP, SW
07-09
10-10
Timetabled sessions
KM
39. Deliver training sessions for technical staff
07-09
10-10
Trained staff
TP, SW
40. Gather feedback from training sessions, feed into
development team
41. Introduce students to eBiolabs
07-09
10-10
Notes for development team
KM
1-10-09
1-10-09
Introduce 1st year student to the system
42. Recruit students into database, Week Zero,
10-09
10-09
Populate eBiolabs student database
43. Pilot goes live Monday Week 1, 5th October
2009
44. Provide support to eBiolabs users
10-09
05-10
Deliver laboratory sessions
10-09
10-10 and ad
infinitum
Supported users
7
GC
8
GC
WORKPACKAGE 8: Launch pilot
Objective: To deliver eBiolabs to ~220 first year
undergraduates
Page 5 of 7
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
GC, GCa, SW,
TP, PW
Project Acronym:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Workpackage and activity
Earliest
start
date
Latest
completion
date
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports in bold)
Milestone
Responsibility
WORKPACKAGE 9: Develop
Objective: Develop eBiolabs in light of experience
45. Develop eBiolabs for next academic year (based
on evaluation findings)
9
10-09
10-10
Improved and expanded system
GC, PW, JE, KM
46. Attend relevant conferences and HEA events
01-09
10-10
Awareness raising
GC, PW, JE, KM
47. Hold eBiolabs-specific dissemination event
04-09
04-09
Awareness raising
GC, PW
48. Hold eBiolabs-specific dissemination event
04-10
04-10
Awareness raising
GC, PW
49. Attend CETL events
01-09
10-10
Awareness raising
GC, PW, JE, KM
50. Give talks to interested parties
01-09
10-10
Awareness raising, talks
GC, PW, JE, KM
03-10
05-10
Report
GC
09-09
08-10
Report
KR, TP
09-09
08-10
Report
TP, KM
WORKPACKAGE 10: Disseminate
Objective: Disseminate eBiolabs to stakeholders /
interested parties
WORKPACKAGE 11: Evaluate, Assess and Report
Objective: To evaluate the success of the project
51. Re-run baseline questionnaire exercise (modify if
necessary). Evaluate and assess wrt earlier
results.
52. Re-run baseline focus groups (modify if
necessary). Evaluate and assess wrt earlier
results.
53. Re-run baseline interviews. Evaluate and assess
Page 6 of 7
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Project Acronym:
Version:
Contact:
Date:
Workpackage and activity
Earliest
start
date
Latest
completion
date
Outputs
(clearly indicate deliverables & reports in bold)
wrt earlier results.
54. 1st interim report to JISC
05-09
06-09
Report
55. End of year report to JISC
01-10
01-10
Report
56. 2nd interim report to JISC
05-10
06-09
Report
57. Final report to JISC
10-10
10-10
Report
Members of Project Team:
GC: Gus Cameron
PW: Paul Wyatt
KM: Kelly Moule
SW: Suzi Wells
TP: Tom Podesta
GCa: Graeme Cappi
KR: Katy Reford
JE: John Eastman
Page 7 of 7
Document title: JISC work package template
Last updated: April 2007
Milestone
10
11
12
13
Responsibility
GC
GC
GC
GC