Post on 26-May-2015
transcript
Agenda
1
Start End Item Speaker/Facilitator
09:00 09:30 Registration and coffee (Lobby Area)
09:30 09:40Welcome and opening address - CBM in context
Prof Denise Kirkpatrick
09:40 09:50 The journey so far Prof James Fleck
09:50 10:05 Case study Dr Perry Williams
10:05 10:15 Break
10:15 11:10Breakout session #1 - The CBM framework
CBM Project Team
11:10 11:15 Contingency/Break
11:15 12:10Breakout session #2 - Embedding the CBM framework
CBM Project Team
12:10 12:20 CBM next steps Mr Mick Jones
12:20 12:30 Wrap-up Prof Gráinne Conole
The journey so far
Professor James Fleck,
Dean and Professor of Innovation Dynamics, OUBS
Project Director, Course Business Models
2
Aims of the CBM project• Open up awareness of alternatives to “OU Classic”• Make visible the cost implications of choices made for
module and programme development• Provide means for comparing approaches across course
teams and faculties • Develop tools to help with effective production and
presentation• Foster debate about pedagogic decisions and innovation• Embed insights from previous phases of CBM
3
Key achievements to date
• 5 view framework developed for capture and sharing of current best practice in form of exemplars and for articulating new course designs and proposals
• Faculty/unit and cross-faculty/unit consultations and updates held• Initial development of support mechanisms and tools/resources to
support implementation (eg. Excel templates, prototype flash widget for ‘Pedagogy Profile’ view, SAS report for Course Performance view, training materials)
• Proposals developed to integrate framework into business as usual processes (via Stage Gate & other reporting reporting processes)
• Framework and integration developed in parallel and with reference to JISC Curriculum Mapping initiative
• Exemplar capture trial exercise4
CBM (2009) framework overview
• A framework of 5 views for use cross-faculty to describe and analyse courses:
1. Course Map*
2. Course Dimensions*
3. Pedagogy Profile*
4. Cost Effectiveness+
5. Course Performance+
*Conceptual view+Data driven view 5
View 1 Course Map
Guidance and support
Communication and collaboration
Reflection and demonstration
Content and activities
Key words
Content and activities
Communication andcollaboration
Reflection anddemonstration
Guidance andsupport
View 2 Course Dimensions view
View 3 Pedagogy Profile
8
9
Staf f (CAU) Staf f (CAU)Non staf f (CAU)
Non staf f (CAU)
LTS / IUPC
LTS / IUPC
SS / IUPC
Tuition
SS non IUPC
Student support
LTS non IUPC
Other non IUPC
Fee income
Grant income
Production
Presentation
Non IUPC
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Production Presentation Non IUPC Total Income Total Costs
Inc
om
e/c
os
ts (£
'00
0)
Co
sts
(£'0
00)
K208 - Course financial profile
37%33%30%
51%
21%
2%
20%
7%
75%
25%
31%
7%
62%
20%
28%
27%
25%
Key characteristics- Wraparound- 60 point course, - 14 presentations,- 7 years- 3,649 students @ 1/3
Pre investment:- Total contribution = 65% (£4.1m)- Contribution per student = £1,137- No of students to breakeven = 142Post investment:- Total contribution = 62% (£4.0m)
Key types of costs Income / cost comparison
Key assumptionsTutor : student - 20AL salary band 75 TMAs (standard)Examinable component - projectProduction resource: [simple print etc?]Staf f [x] days
[Can we list other key factors which af fect the major costs?]Link to "data statement and spreadsheet for detailed adjustments?]
View 4 Cost Effectiveness viewK208 Effective practice in youth justice
Cost Effectiveness view – cost comparison
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
Co
sts
(£'0
00)
K208 K216 KE308 KE312
Non IUPC
Tuition
SS IUPC
LTS IUPC
Presentationcosts CAU
Total productioncosts
Practice basedWraparound
30%
30%
6%
20%
12%
30%
7%
8%
17%
36%
30%
8%
20%
17%
22%
18%
22%
6%
33%
18%
Std Level 3Std Level 3 10
View 5 Course Performance view
11
Potential benefits 1• Course development practices become more
transparent within and across faculties.• Course teams will be able to consult CBM exemplars
when considering new curriculum developments• Course teams will be able to share best practice across
faculties by contributing exemplars• Faculties will be able to develop better articulated, more
adventurous and more cost effective course/remake proposals, drawing on exemplar best practice
• Course teams will be able to start early course planning by articulating key characteristics of the student learning journey and outcomes and the overall architecture of a course rather than the content or detailed components 12
Potential benefits 2
• Course teams will be able to make greater use of more open course architectures and adopt more flexible and agile approaches to course development including more use of ‘found’ (vs. ‘bespoke’) materials
• As course teams work they will be able to monitor the pedagogic profile and student workload and check out and play with a ‘good enough’ financial model
• When courses are reviewed after the first presentation, and at subsequent points, a series of ‘at a glance’ reports enables important features to be explored and clearer decisions made on sound evidence
13
Case Study #1
Dr. Perry Williams
Learning and Teaching Technologies Manager, FELS
14