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