jisc project plan...

Project Identifier: Digital Literacies Version: 1.1 To Paul Bailey Contact: Lesley Gourlay Date: 31

st Oct. 2011

of 24

JISC Project Plan

Project Information

Project Identifier To be completed by JISC

Project Title Digital Literacies as a Postgraduate Attribute

Project Hashtag

Start Date July 2011 End Date July 2013

Lead Institution Institute of Education

Project Director NA

Project Manager Lesley Gourlay

Contact email [email protected]

Partner Institutions SEDA, ALT & SCONUL

Project Webpage URL http://diglitpga.jiscinvolve.org

Programme Name Developing Digital Literacies

Programme Manager Paul Bailey

Document Information

Author(s) Lesley Gourlay

Project Role(s) Project Manager

Date 12th Oct 2011 Filename JISC IOE DigLits plan 1.1.doc

URL

Access Draft for circulation within project team

Document History

Version Date Comments

1.0 26th Oct. 2011 Draft for circulation within project team

1.1 31st Oct. 2011 To Paul Bailey for comment and feedback

mailto:[email protected]

http://diglitpga.jiscinvolve.org/

Project Identifier: Digital Literacies as a Postgraduate Attribute? Version: 1.1 To Paul Bailey Contact: Lesley Gourlay [email protected] Date: 31

st Oct 2011

of 24 Document title: JISC IOE Dig Lits Plan 1.1.doc Last updated: 31

st Oct v 1.1

Table of Contents NB : This table of contents „auto-populates‟ - to update the table of contents – place cursor in the table of contents, right-click your mouse, click ‟update field‟, select appropriate option

1. Project Overview .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes ........................................................................................ 3 1.4 Overall Approach .................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Anticipated Impact ................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Stakeholder Analysis ............................................................................................................... 6 1.7 Related Projects ...................................................................................................................... 7 1.8 Constraints .............................................................................................................................. 7 1.9 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 7 1.10 Risk Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 7 1.11 Technical Development ........................................................................................................... 8 1.12 Standards ................................................................................................................................ 8 1.13 Intellectual Property Rights ..................................................................................................... 8

2 Project Resources ............................................................................................................................ 8 2.1 Project Partners....................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 Project Management ............................................................................................................... 9 2.3 Project Roles ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.4 Programme Support .............................................................................................................. 10

3 Detailed Project Planning .............................................................................................................. 11 3.1 Evaluation Plan ..................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................. 13 3.3 Dissemination Plan ............................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Exit and Embedding Plans .................................................................................................... 15 3.5 Sustainability Plans ............................................................................................................... 16

Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Appendix A. Project Budget............................................................................................................... 16 Appendix B. Workpackages .............................................................................................................. 16


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

Project Overview

1.1 Project Summary The development of Digital Literacies is becoming an increasingly urgent priority across the higher education sector. If universities are to harness the potential of new media for education and graduate preparation, they must view the sustainable development of digital literacies as a mainstream priority. However, this is challenging where both staff and students have greatly varying degrees of experience of - and orientations towards - technologies and their associated social practices. As several key JISC projects have found the most effective means of achieving this is for development work to be specifically-targeted, holistic, contextualised and mapped across programmes at an institution. The SLiDA study also found the introduction of appropriate graduate attributes was an effective means of mainstreaming this development. This is arguably challenging in contexts where mature postgraduate students predominate. The timeframe for study is short, the curricular „space‟ is severely constrained, and the burden of responsibilities outside university is greater in terms of work and family commitments. At the IOE all these factors prevail. We also have a proportion of international students for whom taught master programmes present a considerable challenge in terms of literacies and modes of research and scholarship online. The challenge at the IOE is therefore different in several respects from that faced by a multi-faculty, predominantly undergraduate HEI. Our project aims to understand the needs of our three main groups of students: doctoral; taught Masters; and PGCE. We will also investigate our institutional readiness for sustainable change around digital literacies in terms of processes, relationships and staff expertise. Guided by the findings of our in-depth baselining exercise, we will conduct four implementation case studies –addressing a different area of need. Throughout these, reflection on institutional change processes will take place, leading to exemplar business models for change to share with counterparts across the sector in useable and relevant formats. We will work with a range of internal stakeholders to ensure sustainable developmental processes for both students and staff. We will also seek to embed findings across the sector, via close consultations with three sector bodies from the outset of the project.

1.2 Objectives

To gain in-depth understanding of our students‟ digital literacies via analysis of existing datasets and new ethnographic research

To evaluate our current provision and opportunities for our students

To review our institutional readiness for change around digital literacies

To conduct four implementation case studies developing digital literacies across different contexts

To explore the needs of staff in developing student digital literacies

To develop exemplar organisational strategies focused on digital literacies as a postgraduate attribute

To maintain constant dialogue with our partners SEDA, ALT and SCONUL, to ensure dissemination and sector embedding of project findings

1.3 Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes

Output / Outcome Type (e.g. report, publication, software,

knowledge built)

Brief Description

1) Brief reports on baselining

WPs 4-6

To document and analyse the findings of the baselining process in a format which will both support the project internally, but will also generate interaction with all stakeholder groups within and beyond the IOE.


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

3) A JISC interim report Produced at end of year 1 on findings of baselining work, supplemented by multimedia „student journey‟ narratives for use as case studies externally. Also to specify baselining processes undertaken (including review of current provision, need, structures and change processes; consultation undertaken with stakeholder groups) in formats that other institutions could adopt

4) Brief reports on implementation case studies WPs 7-10

These will be developed on the blog throughout year 2, addressing the ways in which sustainable change has been achieved.

2) Exemplary materials Designed to support students, staff and organisational development, such as updated development frameworks, open learning materials, resource collections, and guidance materials. This will incorporate elements from the student multimodal baselining data, ethics permitting.

6) A JISC end-of-project report This will identify institutional models / exemplar organisational strategies, how these were developed, in useable format. To summarise institutional changes, tangible benefits, development of students and staff and potential role of recognition models for staff.

7) Publications and presentations

The project team will present on the progress and findings of the project at conferences and events, in particular those held under the auspices of the our sector partners

1.4 Overall Approach Strategy and Methodology Our focus is on students‟ experiences of digital literacy in their interaction with the institution. Our baseline review will consist of four new activities:

1. We will revisit existing institutional datasets, such as data collected through our iGraduate

surveys of student satisfaction. These have already provided headline information about

students‟ use of technology, but further analysis would provide a more detailed, informative

and focused picture. Our work in relation to this will be twofold. Firstly, we will explore the

dataset more extensively, make greater and more systematic use in particular of the

qualitative data that it contains. Secondly, we will document the most productive strategies, to

ensure work is embedded and widely used, and also to inform work in future, providing a

process other institutions can follow when working with comparable datasets of their own.

2. We will work with the Students‟ Union to undertake a series of focus groups with the three

groups of students identified above. Participants will be presented with a summary of findings

from the review of iGraduate data, and asked to develop this, checking the credibility of our

interpretations and extending our understanding of experiences and needs surrounding digital

literacies.

3. Alongside this, we will baseline how our students‟ experiences and literacies develop

throughout their time at the institution. To complement the breadth provided by the focus

groups, we will ensure a depth of understanding by conducting in-depth longitudinal data

collection with 12 students over the course of 6 months, (4 students from each of our main

areas of teaching), in order to document their experiences within the lifespan of the project.

The students will be provided with data capture equipment, asked to document multimodally

their digital literacy practices, and interviewed periodically providing rich case studies of what

it means to students to be digitally literate, and the institution‟s support of digital literacies.


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

This will provide a holistic account that other datasets risk missing, and will build on

approaches developed by the JISC-funded „Learner Experiences of E-learning‟ (LEX) project

and the ESRC-funded „Net Generation Encountering elearning at University‟ project.

4. Concurrently, we will undertake a review of our readiness for change as we strive to become

a more „digitally literate institution‟, drawing on reflective models for change management

such as the JISC „Embedding Work-with-IT‟ Toolkit. As this is a two-year project, we would

focus this particularly on the degree to which our institutional development of digital literacies

for staff and students is coherent, holistic and integrated across a range of internal providers

– including the Library, the Academic Writing Centre and the Learning Technologies Unit. We

would also evaluate our existing change management processes around digital literacies,

looking at lines of communication, committee structures, consultation processes and

developmental strategies – with a view to enhancing agility, relevance and sustainability. This

would serve as important piece of work for the institution and beyond in terms of

organisational development and sustainable change management.

5. The second year of the project will concentrate on the four implementation case studies.

Although our work will be informed by the baselining detailed above, there are existing IOE

initiatives around which we would anticipate centring these. In the Library, using Elluminate to

better support users at a distance would also allow us to record and learn more from each

individual problem and solution. This knowledge would then be embedded into services as

well as future information literacy support activities. The Academic Writing Centre is currently

developing distance provision of writing support, and we anticipate building on the existing

work of the JISC-funded „Coventry Online Writing Laboratory‟ project. The IOE is already

committed to the Institute-wide development of teaching and administrative staff, particularly

in the context of its Open Mode work. A co-ordinated programme of training has been

negotiated between Computing, Staff Development and the Learning Technologies Unit, to

ensure effective interventions and avoid duplication of effort. This includes formal training;

one-to-one support; and the creation of resources, both for individual „on demand‟ study and

for re-use as part of the curriculum design process. This co-ordinated provision provides the

platform from which the institution-wide approach to developing digital literacies will be

undertaken and extended. The fourth implementation case study may focus on the

development of distance access to „masterclasses‟ held at the IOE.

Issues to be addressed The challenges IOE postgraduate students face in terms of developing digital literacies for study and future employment, in particular related to the fact that they are largely part-time mature students which multiple professional and family demands, studying for a year only in many cases. Scope and boundaries The project will be confined to the IOE in terms of data collection and analysis. As described above, the baselining will focus on the largest data sets at our disposal, using the analysis of these to design focus groups to explore the issues arising in more detail, focusing on the three groups of students identified. Leading on from the first set of focus groups, the baselining phase will also include an in-depth analysis of student practices across these four groups. In this way, the scope and focus will attend to breadth and depth in order to gain a better understanding of student needs. Concurrently, scope of the baselining exercise will also include a reflective analysis of institutional readiness for change around technologies. The implementation case studies as described above will be of hte scale of a module or unit of service. Critical Success Factors


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

Engagement and sustained commitment of all stakeholders, efficient and flexible project management, effective teamworking, institutional buy-in, active sector body engagement.

1.5 Anticipated Impact

Impact Area Anticipated Impact Description

IOE: postgraduate student digital literacies

IOE postgraduate students to have greater access to development opportunities centred on digital literacies to enhance their educational attainments and professional opportunities and readiness for technologies of the future

IOE: teaching, learning & curriculum development

Broader range of technologies to be appropriately embedded into IOE pedagogic practice via the curriculum to enhance the student experience across postgraduate student groups

IOE: library

Library support and guidance for students around information literacies to be enhanced by the use of technologies

IOE: equality of inclusion and opportunity

Distance, part-time and international students to have a greater range of technologies at their disposal to enhance fair access to educational and professional development opportunities

IOE: institutional readiness for change around technologies

IOE change agents to gain greater awareness of enablers and barriers to change around technologies within the institution.

IOE: staff development Awareness and capacity to be raised among teaching staff, in order to integrate technologies into teaching as appropriate

Sector: HE research

Dissemination of project findings via conferences and publications to inform research community

Sector: educational development

Increased awareness of staff development issues surrounding technologies for educational development community via SEDA

Sector: librarians

Increased awareness of the possibilities for supporting and enhancing digital literacies and increased capacity to embed and integrate appropriate technologies via SCONUL

Sector: learning technologists

Increased awareness of development issues surrounding technologies for learning technologists community via ALT

1.6 Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder Interest / stake Importance (H/M/L)

IOE: Postgrad students across three groups Improved access to development opportunities related to digital literacies

IOE: Academic staff Development opportunities around embedding digital literacies in the curriculum

IOE: Library, Academic Writing Centre and Learning Technologies Unit staff

Opportunities for support services to develop provision and build capacity in terms of digital literacies

IOE: Senior Management & Open Mode Steering Group

Evidence base and piloting of innovation to inform strategy and policy around technologies in the curriculum

Sector: SEDA, SCONUL and ALT Constituent members to benefit from increased awareness of change processes around the


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

development of digital literacies, according to need.

1.7 Related Projects <List any projects that are related to this one, if there are non please indicate this>

1.8 Constraints One of the main potential constraints on the project will be complex workloads and unexpected demands on key project team members, which will call for flexible and careful project and WP management. A further constraint may be lack of time or interest on the part of busy students and staff to engage with the project.

1.9 Assumptions Relationship with key internal and external stakeholders will be key to the success of the project, and maintaining buy-in from these will be vital in order to sustain the project and embed its findings more broadly.

1.10 Risk Analysis

Risk Description Probability (P)

1 – 5 (1 = low

5 = high)

Severity (S)

1 – 5 (1 = low

5 = high)

Risk Score (PxS)

Detail of action to be taken (mitigation / reduction / transfer

/ acceptance)

Difficulties finding participants for baselining, in particular ethnographic data collection

3 5 15 Addressed by networks via student union sabbatical officer & team member Susan McGrath. Incentives provided for research participation.

Long-term impact cannot be meaningfully evaluated within two years.

5 3 15 Accepted, but later impact evaluation is strongly recommended.

Blog use may decline. 5 2 10 Addressed by expertise within team to ensure blog is engaging. Requirements clarified to all participants.

Sector bodies may not engage fully.

2 5 10 Addressed by specifying requirements and paying for time spent on project.

Evaluation of readiness for change may be sensitive.

3 3 9 Addressed with support of project sponsor & by sensitive approach.

Baselining may yield less informative data than anticipated.

2 4 8 Methodologies can be adapted by team, who are experienced educational researchers,

Case study implementation subject to factors such as institutional restructuring.

1 3 3 Addressed by ensuring case studies align to IOE strategy, realistic in size & scope, with strong local involvement


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

Exemplar business cases could become too institution-specific.

1 3 3 Addressed by ensuring that JISC guidelines are used carefully and that business cases are adaptable.

Project reporting / dissemination could be too institution- specific.

1 3 3 JISC guidelines used and business cases / exemplars „transferable‟ or adaptable

1.11 Technical Development Technical development is not one of the objectives of the project.

1.12 Standards The project will adhere to JISC-recommended standards throughout.

1.13 Intellectual Property Rights Project outputs will be made available, free at the point of use, to the UK HE, HE in FE and FE communities in perpetuity, and will be disseminated widely by the project in partnership with JISC, and through our other partner organisations.

2 Project Resources

2.1 Project Partners

We have partnerships with the Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA), to incorporate the project‟s work on supporting digital literacies (and more broadly, postgraduate attributes) within the context of its Professional Development Framework, programmes, conferences and diverse activities. Project team member Martin Oliver sits on the SEDA Scholarship and HE Research Committee, and therefore has direct access to networks and activates. SEDA co-chair Julie Hall also sits on the national Heads of Educational Development forum and has access to a range of professional networks. We would be taking forward previous work as Lesley Gourlay and Julie Hall were joint project managers of the JISC „Embedding Work with IT‟ project, a named predecessor of this project.

We are also partnered with the Association for Learning Technology (ALT) both to inform the project‟s work and also to help with its dissemination. ALT has committed to participation in three meetings to guide the project, has agreed to host and advertise two web-based seminars on the project‟s work (one at the end of the baseline phase, one at the end of the project) and one workshop at ALT-C 2013. It has also agreed to create a section on its „What Research has to say about Practice‟ resource site for a contribution on digital literacies from the project team. Martin Oliver is currently chair of ALT, and so has access to a wide range of networks and dissemination / embedding opportunities.

We have also secured the support of the SCONUL Working Group on Information Literacy, via our Library project team members Stephen Pickles and Gwyneth Price. We will submit contributions to SCONUL „Focus‟ and the regular SCONUL e-bulletin both to disseminate the project outcomes but also to seek wider engagement. We will continue to work closely with colleagues in the Bloomsbury Colleges, building on the close collaborations that we have already achieved between our libraries. The activities of the „M25‟ consortium of Academic Libraries will be another valuable source of community engagement, as its conference, meetings and training events are highly valued by its membership. Additionally, we already have interest in these materials from the colleges in the


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

Bloomsbury Consortium (Birkbeck, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Royal Veterinary College and the School of Oriental and Africa Studies) and have committed to sharing these in the first instance through a Bloomsbury–wide event in year 2 as part of the Bloomsbury Learning Environment – a cross-college, shared service focused on supporting learning and teaching with digital literacies.

2.2 Project Management The project management arrangements are outlined in WP1 Project Management & Reports. Project management will follow a modified PRINCE 2 model, with WPs managed by designated individuals and co-ordinated by the project manager. The project team will meet on a monthly basis to review progress and agree next steps, with the project manager liaising with individuals between meetings as necessary. The project manager will also liaise regularly with the senior management project sponsor, the IOE Pro-Director (Learning and International), and will sit on the IOE Open Mode Steering Group

2.3 Project Roles Dr Mary Stiasny (senior management project sponsor) is IOE Pro-Director for Learning, Teaching and International. Her principal focus is on excellence in teaching and the practice of teaching. A teacher educator, she has interests in pedagogy, mentoring and school partnership. Her key academic interests are education policy and internationalism in education. She chairs the IOE Teaching Committee, Student Experience and Widening Participation Sub-Committee, International Committee, Validation Sub-Committee and Cross-Phase Initial Teacher Education Subcommittee. Website: http://www.ioe.ac.uk/staff/DIRE/DIRE_25.html Dr Lesley Gourlay (project manager) is Director of the Centre of Academic Writing at the IOE, with responsibility for a range of development activities for students around academic and professional writing. She is a member of the Open Mode Steering Group, the Widening Participation Committee and Internationalisation of the Curriculum Working Party. She has published in the area of academic literacies, writing in digitally-mediated contexts and new digital forms of the doctorate. She has lead and participated in various research projects on academic literacies, funded by JISCPAS, QAA Scotland the „Preparing for Academic Practice‟ CETL. She was project manager on the Leverhulme-funded „Coventry University Research into Learning in Immersive Educational Worlds‟ project, and was project manager of the JISC „Embedding Work-with-IT‟ project, a named predecessor to this project which also worked with a range of sector bodies. She is qualified in PRINCE 2 (Foundation) project management methodology. Website: http://www.ioe.ac.uk/staff/FFCL/45255.html Dr. Martin Oliver is Head of the Learning Technologies Unit, with responsibility for supporting staff use of technology for learning and teaching across the institution. He is a member of several relevant institutional committees (e.g. Teaching Committee, Corporate Systems Programme Board, Information Strategy Group) and leads on areas of policy development such as institutional requirements for curriculum design. In terms of research, he has published 53 peer-reviewed journal articles, 4 edited books, and over 100 other research publications; specifically, he has published work on digital literacies (including work building on the LLIDA project co-authored with Helen Beetham) as well as on technology and academic development, and technology and organisational change in Higher Education. He has led and participated in 28 successfully funded proposals concerned with technology and education (total value c. £2.85m), from the ESRC, EPSRC, the EU, the Higher Education Academy, JISC, Becta, Eduserv, ESCalate, LTSN Generic Centre, SEDA, ALT and BP Ltd. Relevant completed projects include the JISC-funded study, “The Effectiveness of Resources, Tools and Support Services used by Practitioners in Designing and Delivering E-Learning Activities”; a TQEF funded project using the Roundtable methodology to effect institutional change in administrative uses of technology; and BeCTA-funded work on the web 2.0 literacies of young learners. Website: http://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/LKLB_39.html Stephen Pickles is Head of Library Services, with responsibility for all library, archives and institutional repository activity at the IOE. He is member of the Information Strategy Committee, Teaching Committee and Senate. He developed the library‟s extensive range of information literacy

http://www.ioe.ac.uk/staff/DIRE/DIRE_25.html

http://www.ioe.ac.uk/staff/FFCL/45255.html

http://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/LKLB_39.html


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

teaching support for the doctoral school providing significant teaching input to the doctoral training programme, the Ed D teaching and to the Masters in Research programme. He was director of the E-librarian service of the TDA funded Teacher Training Resource Bank. As a result of discussions at the Strategic Forum for Research in Education (www.sfre.ac.uk ) he is working with colleagues at the British Education Index on plans to create a UK Education Research Information Service. Gwyneth Price is Collection Development Services Librarian at the IOE and includes in her responsibilities the development of all information literacy support and training. She has been a fellow of the Centre for Distance Education and was a member of the Libraries and Social Software in Education project (http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2008/abstracts/PDFs/Secker_342-349.pdf). She has presented at conferences in the field of information literacy, including a keynote at the first LILAC (Librarians‟ Information Literacy Annual Conference) in 2005 and paper at the IATUL conference in 1999 “User Education in Higher Education: helping academics join the learning environment”. Her publications include “Developing the e-literacy of academics: case studies from LSE and the Institute of Education, University of London.” Journal of eLiteracy, Vol 1 (2004) 97-108 http://www.jelit.org/38/01/JeLit_18.pdf and “The Information Literacy Cookbook: Ingredients, tips and recipes for success.” Chandos, 2007. She is a member of the IOE programme Validation Committee, the Open Mode Strategic Review team and the Student Experience committee. She also manages the IOE Library blog: www.newsamnews.ioe.ac.uk Susan McGrath is Co-President (Finance and Services) of the Institute of Education Students‟ Union and a research student in the Doctoral School. Her research focuses on the role that electronic information, advice and guidance can have on the UCAS decision making process, and the use of digital technology by university marketing departments to engage with prospective students. She chaired the Project Advisory Group for a UCAS/HEFCE study on the feasibility of a national e-prospectus service (2010) and was a member of the Steering Group for a UCAS/BIS study that investigated the potential for an e-portal to guide students through the current plethora of online information on higher education (2009). In her role as SU President she represents students at the Academic Board, Council, and Senate, and her committee work includes Teaching, Student Experience, and Research and Knowledge Transfer. Website: http://www.ioe.ac.uk/studentInformation/1056.html Dr Jude Fransman has recently joined the department of Culture, Communication and Media at the IOE as a postdoctoral researcher and teaching associate. Her research interests span literacy and communication studies („New Literacy Studies‟ research into literacy and development); academic practice (academic identity, digital scholarship and the politics of method); and community studies (multimodal practices of representation in community activism and community-based research). Prior to joining the IOE she worked as a Research Associate in the Institute of Educational Technology at the Open University (developing a project on „Digital Scholarship‟). She has conducted numerous consultancies in the field of adult literacy for international organisations (including UNESCO, the OECD and ActionAid International) and continues to act as a „special advisor‟ on literacy for UNESCO. Website: http://www.ioe.ac.uk/staff/FFCL/56569.html

Team Member Name

Role Contact Details Days per week to be spent on the project

Mary Stiasny Project Sponsor [email protected] 8 days over 2 years

Lesley Gourlay Project Manager [email protected] 100 days over 2 years

Martin Oliver Head LTU [email protected] 95 days over 2 years

Susan McGrath Sabbatical Officer [email protected] 30 days over 2 years

Jude Fransman Researcher [email protected] 40 days over 1st year

Stephen Pickles Head Library [email protected] 10 days over 2 years

Gwyneth Price Head of collections, lib. [email protected] 10 days over 2 years

2.4 Programme Support We would particularly appreciate support in the area of analysing readiness for institutional change.

http://www.sfre.ac.uk/

http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/past/nlc2008/abstracts/PDFs/Secker_342-349.pdf

http://www.jelit.org/38/01/JeLit_18.pdf

http://www.newsamnews.ioe.ac.uk/

http://www.ioe.ac.uk/studentInformation/1056.html

http://www.ioe.ac.uk/staff/FFCL/56569.html









st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

3 Detailed Project Planning

3.1 Evaluation Plan WP 1: Project Management & Reporting and WP 2: Consultation, Embedding and Partner Organisations will be evaluated via a combination of feedback from JISC programme managers, internal feedback from project sponsor, liaison with IOE student‟s union, external feedback from sector bodies, reference to the dissemination plan, the evaualtion plan and discussion with the project „critical friend‟. The table below details in chronological order the evaluation plan for the „operational‟ WPs 3-10:

Timing Factor to Evaluate Questions to Address Method(s) Measure of Success

Mid-Nov 11

WP 4: Baselining existing data

Is the analysis of IOE igraduate data thoough, informative and useful to WP 5?

Close reading of qualitative data for emergent themes

Clarity and relevance of brief WP 4 report to team, in terms of informing WP 5

Oct 11

WP 3 : Baselining: Institutional Readiness

What were the learning points which came out of recent funded projects focused on technologies at the IOE? What were the barriers to / enablers of change? Was the change sustained, and if so how?

Interviews to be held with key change agents involved in previous projects funded at the IOE

An analysis of the interviews leading to raised awareness of the IOE as a context for change around technologies and the development of digital literacies. Presented into practical implications useable by senior management and change agents.

Dec 11 WP 5: Baselining Focus groups

Has ethical approval been granted? Has an appropriate schedule been developed on the basis on the report for WP 4? Were sufficient numbers of appropriate students recruited? Were three focus groups held with each of the three student groups? Has the data been transcribed? Has data been analysed?

Semi-structured schedule developed, participants sought via SU, videoed focus groups conducted by researcher, professionally transcribed and analysed.

WP 5 report - clear, theorised and relevant analysis in useable format for internal and external dissemination, also to inform WP 6

Jan 12 WP 6: Baselining Ethnographic research: preparation

Has ethical approval been granted? Has all equipment been obtained? Have 12 appropriate participants been recruited? Have they been given guidance on how to approach the research and have they commenced journaling?

Use of networks and SU to recruit. Researcher expertise used to guide and encourage participation.

Ethical approval gained. Equipments obtained. 12 recruits having granted informed consent to the research, and having received guidance and support. Journaling having commenced, supported by


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

Has an online space been set up for potential sharing of artefacts?

researcher. Password protected online space established and being used.

Feb 12, Apr 12, Jun 12 Jul 12

WP 6: Baselining Ethnographic research: data collection

Have interviews 1, 2 and 3 been conducted with all participants? Have participants compiled sufficient and appropriate journaling data? Has initial analysis been completed?

Semi-structured interviews, guidance from researcher, researcher‟s expertise

Completed collection, compiling and initial analysis of data for 3 phases in WP 6 Report.

Aug 12

WPs 7-10: Implementation case studies: preparation

Have four suitable and relevant contexts for implementation case studies been identified? Are these relevant to student need as identified in the baselining WPs 4-6? Are they congruent with institutional and local developmental strategy? Are they relevant to the missions of the sector bodies? Have students had input?

Negotiation, networking and consultation

Four case studies set up and detailed plans agreed with input from students and local stakeholders. WPs 7-10 elaborated by team members responsible for each case study.

Oct 12

WP 6: Baselining Ethnographic research: in depth data analysis

Has in-depth analysis of data been carried out? Is it in a format which may be disseminated internally and externally?

Thematic analysis of multimodal data

In-depth report on journaling data and interviews, to inform WPs 7-10

Dec 12

WPs 7-10: Implementation case studies: progress check

Are the four implementation case studies progressing as planned? Do the WPs need to be adjusted in response to local circumstances?

Negotiation, networking and consultation

WPs 7-10 managers to document and report progress to team.

Mar 13

WPs 7-10 Implementation case studies: evaluation

Have the case studies achieved their objectives? What has been learned in each context? How can this be captured for ma range of standpoints, for a range of audiences?

Appropriate evaluation methodologies tbc. Undertaken across case studies to avoid bias. Involvement of project „critical friend‟

Four informative and useful brief evaluation reports produced, to be adapted for internal and external use


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

3.2 Quality Assurance

Output / Outcome Name

WP 4 report

When will QA be carried out?

Who will carry out the QA work?

What QA methods / measures will be used?

Nov 11 Academic colleagues tbc Report will be peer-reviewed against standards of analysis expected in the field


WP 5 report




Dec 11 – Jan 12 Academic colleagues tbc Report will be peer-reviewed against standards of analysis expected in the field


WP 6 report




Nov 11 Academic colleagues tbc Report will be peer-reviewed against standards of analysis expected in the field


External dissemination and publication




Throughout Peer reviewers via journals and conferences

Outputs will be peer-reviewed against standards of analysis expected for published work


User experience of implementation case studies




Ongoing, with data obtained from focus groups and usage analysis

Peer team members An evaluation of users‟ experiences via range of feedback mechanisms

3.3 Dissemination Plan

Timing Dissemination Activity Audience Purpose Key Message

27th Oct

2011 Lesley Gourlay Invited seminar Languages and Applied Linguistics Roehampton

Applied Linguistics lecturers and students

To raise awareness about the project in relation to conceptions of digital literacies

Project to look at digital literacies using qualitative, in-depth approach. Implications for development of academic writing.

Oct 11-Jul 13

Martin Oliver, report to SEDA Scholarship and HE Research Committee

Senior Academic Developers from across sector

To raise awareness about the project, seek embedding opportunities

Project will offer useful findings around technologies to educational developers.

7th Nov

2011 Gwyneth Price. SCONUL Working Group on

Librarians responsible for

To raise awareness about

Project will offer useful findings


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

Information Literacy developing information literacy initiatives

the project and report on baselining

around technologies to librarians.

6th-8

th Dec

2011 Lesley Gourlay SRHE SRHE Conference talk & launch of new „Digital Academy „group.

HE Researchers & practitioners interested in technologies

To raise awareness about the project, report on baselining

Project will offer a theorised and nuanced approach to technologies in HE, with practical findings.

12th-13

th

Jan 2012

Lesley Gourlay Language for Special Purposes Symposium University of Stockholm, Web 2.0 strand: talk

English language teachers & researchers


Project will offer useful findings around technologies to EAP professionals.

11th – 13

th

April 2012 Gwyneth Price. Librarians‟ Information Literacy Annual Conference (LILAC), Glasgow

Librarians from across sector

To report on baselining and intitial outputs

Project will offer useful findings around technologies to librarians.

7th – 9

th

June

Lesley Gourlay International theorising Education Conference, Joint Symposium on Posthumanism and Education

Educational researchers and practitioners

To raise awareness about implications of the project for understandings of technologies in HE

Project will explore alternative conceptions and pedagogies surrounding technologies in HE.

17th – 18

th

May 2012 SEDA Conference „The Student Journey‟: talk

Senior Academic Developers from across sector

To report on baselining and initial outputs

Project will offer useful findings and materials related to technologies to educational developers.

Sept 2012

Martin Oliver, paper at ALT conference

Learning technologists & researchers

To report on baselining and initial outputs

Project will offer useful findings and materials related to technologies to learning technologists.

Oct 2012 Development event - SEDA „Embedding Learning Technologies‟

SEDA course facilitators

To report on baselining and initial outputs, seek embedding opportunities on SEDA course

Project will provide a collaborative opportunity to develop and materials related to technologies to educational developers.

Nov 2012

Design new SEDA PDF resource on „Technologies, Graduate Attributes and Identitites‟

Academic Developers across the sector

To report on baselining and initial outputs, seek embedding opportunities

PDF will provide a reflective resource to and materials related to technologies to


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

educational developers.

Mar 2013

Lesley Gourlay to run event for SEDA based on project

Academic Developers across the sector

To report on baselining and initial outputs from implementation case studies, seek embedding opportunities


Apr 2013

Martin Oliver to run webinar for ALT based on project

Learning technologists and researchers across the sector



Jun 2013

Team to run event for SRHE „Digital Academy „group.



Project will provide a collaborative opportunity to develop and materials related to technologies to HE researchers.

Dec 2013 Lesley Gourlay SRHE SRHE Conference talk



Project will offer findings related to technologies of relevant to HE researchers and practitioners.

3.4 Exit and Embedding Plans

Project Outputs/Outcomes

Action for Take-up & Embedding Action for Exit

Baseline Reports WPs 4-6 Adapted to report to T & L Committee, Open Mode Steering Committee

Archived on website and placed in repositories

Implementation Evaluation Reports WPs 7-10

Report to Teaching Committee & Open Mode Steering Committee

Archived on website and placed in repositories

Publications

Submit to relevant journals and outlets

Available via publication outlets

IOE capacity building activities

Staff development activity Embedded into staff development process

Materials, support and guidance for use by this and other institutions

Promotion to internal communities and partners SEDA, SCONUL & ALT

Embedded into partner activities, policy and provision as appropriate

Final Evaluation Report Report to Teaching Committee & Open Mode Steering Committee

Informs future T&L strategy

New curriculum design processes

Report to Teaching Committee, Open Mode Steering Committee

Informs future T&L strategy


st Oct 2011


st Oct v 1.1

3.5 Sustainability Plans

Project Outputs Why Sustainable Scenarios for Taking Forward

Issues to Address

Reports generated by the project

They will form part of a record held by governance structures and strategic development, and will inform immediate action

To be used to inform sustainable institutional development surrounding change processes and technologies

Potential loss of momentum around findings after end of funded period

Data analysis and publications

The analysis will be presented in formats which will be sustained in the public domain via publication and dissemination

To be used to inform sustainable institutional development surrounding change processes and technologies, and also to be presented for use and adaptation by the sector via the sector bodies.

The extent to which context-bound findings will be transferable to other contexts of use.

Implementation case studies

Will be embedded in the academic and support provision where they are hosted, and will be expanded to include a wider set of users

To be used to inform sustainable institutional development surrounding change processes and technologies, and also to be presented for use and adaptation by the sector via the sector bodies.

The extent to which context-bound findings will be transferable to other contexts of use.

Appendices

Appendix A. Project Budget

Appendix B. Workpackages

Project Name : Digital Literacies as a Postgraduate Attribute Version: 1.1 To Paul Bailey Date: 31/10/2011

of 24 Document title: JISC IOE Digital Literacies WP plan draft 1 Last updated: 24

th Oct. 2011

JISC WORK PACKAGE

WORKPACKAGES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Months A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J

1: Project management

2: Institutional change / sector embedding

3: Baselining: Institutional readiness

4: Baselining: Analysing existing data

5:Baselining: Focus groups

6: Baselining: Ethnographic research

7: Implementation: Case study 1




Project start date: July 2011 Project completion date: July 2013 Duration: 24 months


Workpackage and activity Earliest

start

date

Latest

completion

date

Outputs (clearly indicate deliverables & reports in bold) Milestone

Responsibility

of 24 Document title: JISC IOE Dig Lits plan 1.1.doc Last updated: 31

st Oct. 2011

YEAR 1

WORKPACKAGE 1: Project management Objective:

Jul 11 Jul 13 Lesley

1. Set up IOE website space Aug 11 Nov 11 Website live Martin

2. Monthly project team meetings Monthly Dates tbc. Progress review / next steps Lesley

3. Respond JISC queries & submit revised proposal Aug 11 Sept 11 Response & proposal to Paul Bailey Lesley

4. Submit draft project plan & WP plan Sept 11 Sept 11 Submitted to Paul Bailey Lesley

5. Attend JISC start-up programme meeting Oct 11 Attendance 4th Oct. Birmingham Lesley & Martin

6. Report to IOE Teaching Committee Oct 11 Initial report on project aims 5th Oct Lesley

7. Host JISC project visit Autumn term 2011 Aug 11 Oct 11 Meeting held 13th Oct. Feedback received Lesley

8. Submit final project plan & WP plan Oct 11 Oct 11 Submitted to Paul Bailey Lesley

9. Evaluate WP 4 Nov 11 Brief report to team Team

10. Interim report Apr 12 Submitted to JISC Lesley

11. Attend JISC programme meeting May 12 Attendance 15th May tbc Lesley & Martin

12. Attend JISC programme meeting Oct 12 Attendance 16th Oct tbc Lesley & Martin

13. Interim report Oct 12 Submitted to JISC Lesley

14. Interim report Apr 13 Submitted to JISC Lesley

15. Attend JISC final programme meeting May 13 Attendance 14th May tbc Lesley & Martin



start

date

Latest

completion

date


Responsibility


st Oct. 2011

16. Draft final report Mar 13 Jun 13 Submitted to JISC Lesley

17. Final report Jun 13 Jul 13 Submitted to JISC Lesley

WORKPACKAGE 2: Organisational change & sector Objective:

Jul 11 Jul 13 Lesley, Martin & Gwyneth

18. IOE: Organisational change Oct 11 Jul 12 Interviews completed, transcribed and analysed with key change agents and staff at the IOE involved in previous funded projects concerned with technologies.

Lesley

19. Secure support from SEDA, ALT & SCONUL via yr 1 initial consultation 1

Jul 11 Aug 11 Letters of support received, initial agreements re means of embedding

Lesley, Martin & Stephen

20. 4 consultations per year with sector bodies Oct 11 Dec 11 With clear outcomes against dissemination plan

Lesley, Martin & Stephen

21. Range of dissemination & embedding activities as detailed in dissemination plan

Jul 11 Jul 13 Papers, talks, attendance at meetings, links to project outputs’ established and amended as appropriate.

Team

WORKPACKAGE 3: Baselining: institutional Objective:

Oct 11 Jun 13 Lesley & Mary

22. Initial discussions with Dr Mary Stiasny & Professor Diana Laurillard to establish parameters, methodology and priorities

Oct 11 Nov 11 Parameters, methodology and priorities established

Lesley

23. Reflection and analysis of recent institutional change projects around technologies via discussion with key members of staff (tbc)

Nov 11 Nov 11 Successes and challenges analysed. Barriers to change identified in terms of institutional structure, culture and

Lesley & Mary



start

date

Latest

completion

date


Responsibility


st Oct. 2011

processes.

24. Action points identified at institutional level (tbc)

Nov 11 Nov 11 Action plan agreed Lesley & Mary

WORKPACKAGE 4: Baselining: existing data Objective:

Aug 11 Oct 11 Lesley, Martin & Jude

25. Obtain all iGraduate data held at IOE Aug 11 Oct 11 Electronic copy of all data obtained Martin

26. Re-analyse data pertaining to technologies Sept 11 Mid- Nov 11 Brief report to team including themes for focus groups

Martin & Lesley

27. Conduct brief literature review in the area Oct 11 Nov 11 Brief report for team Lesley, Martin & Jude

WORKPACKAGE 5: Baselining: focus groups Objective:

Sept 11

Dec 11

Lesley

28. Obtain ethics clearance (for whole project) Oct 11 Oct 11 Clearance granted Lesley

29. Purchase book token incentives Oct 11 Nov 11 Tokens received Lesley

30. Design schedule on basis of WP 4, design flyer & consent form

Sept 11 Nov 11 Schedule, flyer and consent form created.

Lesley, Martin & Susan

31. Seek participants, organise rooms & recording equipment, prize draw

Oct 11 Nov 11 Posters displayed, email sent, participants recruited & focus groups arranged with equipment secured.

Jude & Susan

32. Administer 3 focus groups: Doctoral, Masters & PGCE

Nov 11 Nov 11 Focus groups run and recorded with at least 6 students each group

Jude

33. Arrange transcription, close reading analysis of data for emergent themes

Nov 11 Dec 11 Send sound files to Way with Words and receive transcription. Analyse data. Produce brief report for team on themes.

Jude, Lesley & Martin



start

date

Latest

completion

date


Responsibility


st Oct. 2011

WORKPACKAGE 6: Baselining: ethnographic research

Objective:

Oct 11 Oct 12

Lesley

34. Order recording equipment Oct 11 Nov 11 12 x iTouch handsets received Lesley

35. Refine planned methodology on basis of WPs 4&5 Dec 11 Dec 12 Methodology agreed within team Lesley, Martin & Jude

36. Design schedule on basis of WP 5, design flyer & consent form

Dec 11 Dec 12 Guidelines for participants written, flyer written, consent form written

Lesley, Martin & Jude

37. Secure participants, organise recording equipment

Dec 11 Jan 12 Flyers posted, emails sent, participants secured (4 from each group)

Jude & Susan

38. Ethnographic research phase 1 (exact details tbc) Jan 12 Feb 12 12 students conduct journaling, submit postings and participate in interview 1.

Jude

39. Ethnographic research phase 2 (exact details tbc) Mar 12 Apr 12 12 students conduct journaling, submit postings and participate in interview 2.

Jude

40. Ethnographic research phase 3 (exact details tbc) May 12 Jun 12 12 students conduct journaling, submit postings and participate in interview 3.

Jude

41. Transcription staged throughout Jan 12 Jun 12 Transcripts received from transcription service

Jude

42. Initial analysis of data in terms of student needs and priorities

Jan 12 Jul 12 Set of initial themes identified for each of the three groups, data grouped

Jude

43. In-depth analysis of data, to inform WPs 7-10 Aug 12 Oct 12 In-depth report on multimodal journaling data and interviews

Lesley, Martin, Susan

YEAR 2

WORKPACKAGE 7: Implementation: case study 1 Objective:

Aug 12 May 13 Lesley



start

date

Latest

completion

date


Responsibility


st Oct. 2011

44. Context identified on the basis of baselining findings and local / institutional priorities

Jun 12 Sept 12 A relevant context and technology-based intervention identified to address an area of student need on basis on WPs 4-6

Lesley, Susan, Mary and local stakeholders

45. Detailed implementation plan developed collaboratively with local stakeholders

Jun 12 Sept 12 Plan produced with project plan and deliverables negotiated and agreed

Lesley and local stakeholders

46. Ethics clearance sought where necessary Sept 12 Sept 12 Ethics clearance granted Lesley

47. Case study intervention conducted (details tbc) Oct 12 Dec 12 Full implementation of intervention Lesley and local stakeholders

48. Evaluation and feedback conducted Nov 12 Dec 12 WP 7 Evaluation report Other team member tba

WORKPACKAGE 8: Implementation: case study 2

Objective:

Aug 12 May 13 Martin



Martin, Susan, Mary and local stakeholders



Martin and local stakeholders

51. Ethics clearance sought where necessary Sept 12 Sept 12 Ethics clearance granted Martin

52. Case study intervention conducted (details tbc) Oct 12 Dec 12 Full implementation of intervention Martin and local stakeholders




start

date

Latest

completion

date


Responsibility


st Oct. 2011


Objective:

Aug 12 May 13 Gwyneth



Gwyneth, Susan, Mary & stakeholders



Gwyneth & stakeholders

56. Ethics clearance sought where necessary Sept 12 Sept 12 Ethics clearance granted Gwyneth

57. Case study intervention conducted (details tbc) Oct 12 Dec 12 Full implementation of intervention Gwyneth & stakeholders



Objective:

Aug 12 May 13 Tbc



Tbc, Susan, Mary & stakeholders



Tbc & stakeholders

61. Ethics clearance sought where necessary Sept 12 Sept 12 Ethics clearance granted Tbc

62. Case study intervention conducted (details tbc) Oct 12 Dec 12 Full implementation of intervention Tbc & stakeholders




start

date

Latest

completion

date


Responsibility


st Oct. 2011

Members of Project Team:

Name Role

Mary Stiasny Pro-Director Learning & International

Lesley Gourlay (project manager) Director of Academic Writing Centre

Martin Oliver Reader in Education, Head of Learning Technologies Unit

Stephen Pickles Head of Library Services

Gwyneth Price Head of Collection Development Services, Library

Jude Fransman Research Associate

Susan McGrath Student Sabbatical Officer

jisc project plan...

Documents