a) Bid cover sheet JISC Grant Funding 5/11 Cover Sheet for Bids (All sections must be completed) Name of JISC Initiative (identify strand ie A, B or C): Assessment and Feedback Programme Strand C Name of Lead Institution: Name of Proposed Project: Name(s) of Project Partners(s) (except commercial sector – see below) Kingston University Uniqurate University of Glasgow, Harper Adams University College and University of Strathclyde This project involves one or more commercial sector partners YES / NO (delete as appropriate) Full Contact Details for Primary Contact: Name: Graham Alsop/David Livingstone Position: Principal Lecturer/Senior Lecturer Email: [email protected]/[email protected] Tel: 02084172889 Address: Faculty of Science, Engineering and Computing School of Computing and Information Systems, Kingston University, Road, Kingston upon Thames, SURREY KT1 2EE Length of Project: Project Start Date: 18 months 1st Sept 2011 Project End Date: Penrhyn 28 Feb 2013 Total Funding Requested from JISC: £39,994 Funding requested from JISC broken down across Academic Years (Aug-July) Aug11 – July12 Aug12 – July13 £24,566 £15,427 Total Institutional Contributions: £57,438 Outline Project Description The main objective of this project is to increase the usage of standards-based electronic assessment tools in HE. This will be achieved by refactoring the available tools that produce content in the Question and Test Interoperability Specification 2.1 (QTI2.1) format. These tools will extended via an Agile development approach involving fresh “client” organisations to add new UI elements and features designed to facilitate their use by novice users. I have looked at the example FOI form at Appendix A and included an FOI form in this bid I have read the Funding Call and associated Terms and Conditions of Grant at Appendix B For FE institutions only: Please tick this box if you are an FE institution in England, please tick this box to confirm that you meet the eligibility requirement of teaching HE to more than 400 FTE YES / NO (delete as appropriate) YES / NO (delete as appropriate) b) Appropriateness and fit to programme objectives and overall value to the JISC community Introduction 1. The main objective of this project is to increase the usage of standards-based electronic assessment tools in HE. This will be achieved by refactoring the available tools that produce content in the Question and Test Interoperability Specification 2.1 (QTI2.1) format. These tools will extended via an Agile development approach involving fresh “client” organisations to add new UI elements and features designed to facilitate their use by novice users. Background 2. Several projects have developed tools for the creation of electronic assessment content that uses the Question and Test Interoperability Specification version 2.1 (QTI2.1) format. Examples of these projects are QTITools1, MathAssess2 and FETLAR3,4, which resulted in the question authoring tools Aqurate5 and Mathqurate6, and the test authoring tool Spectatus7. 3. QTI2.1 is important for a number of reasons. It allows for the exchange of question items and tests among different systems. Thus questions authored and stored in this format will be transferable among systems (this is being further ensured by the ongoing QTI Implementation, Profiling and Support (QTIIPS) project). Given the current climate in FE and HE there is likely to be a further need to utilize intelligent ways of undertaking both formative and summative assessment. Maxmising this ability through an open source approach based upon open standards will support this need. 4. In terms of QTI’s assessment ability the specification provides the means for authors to include individualised feedback depending on the student’s input, in addition to hints and solutions. Such feedback can range from “OK, that’s the right answer” to “you have correctly labelled all of the components apart from the ‘fanbelt’, please look at the solution to see the correct location” or “You seem to have made an error in calculating the coefficient of x2” and may contain multimedia objects as appropriate. These comments may be provided in conjunction with the opportunity to submit another attempt. This capability is valuable for formative and self assessment and enriches the learning environment for students while giving the tutor a means of addressing problems directly and promptly. Transferring QTI to a wider community 5. The existing applications have now reached a degree of maturity. However, they were developed either as proof of concepts or specifically targeted at expert users – expert in this sense meaning either within a subject area, or with respect to the QTI specification. For example, Aqurate and its complementary projects represent a showcase of what could be done generally with QTI 2.0, and the subsequent application Mathqurate was developed for a particular subject group and to test and develop mathematical extensions to the QTI 2.1 specification. As a result, the software that emerged was designed for Mathematicians and QTI experts. This was an appropriate outcome for these projects and their specified target audiences. However, as they stand these tools are only readily usable by those who are au fait with the specific subject areas and with QTI itself. 6. Clearly, this is not the ideal scenario for potential authors of electronic assessment content with no prior knowledge or experience with QTI. New users find the existing tools daunting and they are not easily transferrable to those outside the original project circle. This has had an impact on their uptake and, arguably, on the uptake of QTI 2.1 as a platform for electronic assessment in HE. Even within institutions such as ours where expert knowledge of QTI and the current tools is available, the authoring of QTI e-assessment content remains almost entirely with those who were directly involved in previous projects. The skills they use come from their immersion in QTI for many years and are not transferable short of subjecting a new user to similar immersion. Notwithstanding the portability of QTI as a standard, this raises questions over sustainability of QTI content (institutionally speaking) if these experts become unavailable in the future. 7. This project will take the existing QTI authoring tools Spectatus and Mathqurate, and transfer them to two named client institutions. During an iterative Agile development process, the applications will be 1 th http://www.qtitools.org, accessed 12 July 2011 th http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/projects/mathssasses.aspx, accessed 12 July 2011 3 th http://www.fetlar.bham.ac.uk, accessed 12 July 2011 4 th http://aqurate.kingston.ac.uk/fetlar, accessed 12 July 2011 5 th http://aqurate.kingston.ac.uk/indexold.htm, accessed 12 July 2011 6 th http://aqurate.kingston.ac.uk/mathqurate, accessed 12 July 2011 7 th http://aqurate.kingston.ac.uk/spectatus, accessed 12 July 2011 2 modified to detach them from any specific subject area, and to allow QTI naïfs to create questions and tests without the need to be familiar with the specification. The current expectation is that wizard-style dialogues will be added to the applications that allow users to build questions from a range of templates, designed to provide an accessible user experience that allows the creation of content ranging from simple multiple choice up to more complex questions that evaluate user input. However, depending on user feedback during the Agile process, this may change (see paragraphs 11-17). In parallel with application development, support and documentation will be provided to the client institution on how to best utilise the tools within their institutional context. 8. The ultimate result of the project will be to extend the use of these tools beyond their current “inner circle”. This will encourage the creation of new content and break the cycle where currently the use of and authoring of content in QTIv2.1 in HE is confined to a knowledgeable few. Each of the partner institutions on this project has a need for integrated feedback-rich assessment in STEM disciplines. By providing tools that extend the number of QTI content authors we address not only this need in the partner institutions, but also encourage the adoption of open standards elsewhere. This will provide the means for widespread sharing and repurposing of content and encourages software providers to incorporate import and export facilities for QTI objects into their systems. This additional flexibility will increase the efficiency of content production and add value to students, staff and institutions alike. 9. This project is allied to the QTIDI project, which aims to transfer a generalised, standards-based connector for integrating the MathAssessEngine renderer for QTIv2.1 into VLEs to the same group of partner institutions. While both projects stand alone, if both are successful it is anticipated that the two projects will support one another – this has already occurred during the composition of the two bids, which will be evident in their content. The knowledge base with respect to QTI has been built up by working on several inter-institutional JISC and HEA funded projects over a number of years. Several members of the project team are currently involved in another JISC project focusing on QTI (QTI-IPS). The two new projects will continue to share expertise and personnel, and in combination will provide a complete QTI-based end-to-end solution, providing the means for academics to author innovative assessment items and the mechanism for delivering them to students in a form which integrates fully with their course. 10. The name of this project is taken from the existing question authoring tools, Aquarate and Mathqurate. The primary objective is that universally accessible and transferable QTI2.1 authoring tools will result – hence Uniqurate. c) Quality of proposal and robustness of workplan Project planning, management and development methodology 11. An Agile, iterative approach will be taken towards software development that will be loosely based on Scrum. It is expected that there will be in the region of six “sprints”. Each sprint will open with an online planning meeting, which will consider the software outputs of the previous sprint and feed back on the user experience and recommendations for improvements. This will inform the software development that will take place during the sprint. 12. By its very nature, an Agile approach mandates an adaptive approach to planning. It should therefore be noted that the following is indicative, and by design will evolve depending on the needs of the client institutions through the lifecycle of the project. Similarly, Table 1 shows a list of staff, their roles and the time they will spend on the project; the times give are averaged out over the lifetime of the project and are not intended to be rigidly fixed and/or scheduled – for example, it may be that a staff member spends several days working on the project, and is then inactive for several subsequent weeks. This flexibility will be important for the success of the Agile approach. 13. It is anticipated that, while the project will run from September 2011 to Feb 2013, the main thrust of development will take place over approximately 12 months between December 2011/November 2012. This will allow for the initial planning, for the current versions of the tools to be installed at the client institutions and to allow sufficient time for the client institutions to make use of the existing tools and begin to formulate the required feedback that will drive the development process. "scrum" 1 week 2 months "sprint" Product backlog document Software Increment sprint planning meeting 8 Figure 1 - Adapted Scrum approach 14. The first sprint will use the current state of the tools as its basis for discussion, and its planning meeting will define a “product backlog” document, outlining required features and change controls to the tools. Subsequent sprints will “tick off” and, potentially, add items to this document depending on the results of the development work during the sprint and the subsequent feedback from the user community. 15. During each sprint, regular online “scrums” will occur. Ideally these will take the form of a brief online session at which users and developer will specify what they have done since the last scrum, what their plans are before the next scrum, and any needs or potential obstacles that may stand in their way. If an online session is not possible, a concise email will suffice. The intent is to ensure that, despite physical distance, a continuous line of communication occurs between team members, with a feedbackdevelopment-feedback cycle that enables the user community to shape the tools to their requirements. 16. The same Agile, Scrum-based approach will also be shared by sister project QTIDI. 17. The project will be managed in accordance with the JISC Project Management Guidelines. David Livingstone will project manage, assisted by Graham Alsop. Staff List, roles and availability Name (Initials) Institution Role Time allocated Paul Neve (PN) Kingston University Senior E-learning software developer – main software developer and development lead 3 days per week, between December 2011 and November 2012 inclusive Graham Alsop (GA) Kingston University PI and academic/project champion and manager ½ day per week David Livingstone (DL) Kingston University PI and academic/project champion and manager ½ day per week Niall Barr (NB) University of Glasgow QTI expert and software developer – integration assistance and facilitation between authoring tools and renderers (i.e. QTIDI project) ½ day per week Sue Milne (SM) Independent consultant Documentation and QTI schema support 9 days over the duration of the project Michael Aherne (MA) University of Strathclyde E-learning developer - on-site support ½ day per week and roll-out for “client” institution Sue Barnes (SB) University of Strathclyde Project/Academic champion ½ day per week Project champion ½ day per week Roger Greenhalgh Harper Adams (RG) 8 Adapted from original material from http://openclipart.org. Name (Initials) Stephen Spencer (SS) Institution Harper Adams David White (DW) Harper Adams Role Time allocated E-learning developer - on-site support ½ day per week and roll-out for “client” institution Academic champion ½ day per week Table 1 – staff details Project scheduling Task Timing Deliverable Documentation/project management tasks Throughout Project blog, wiki and discussion forums Confirm project plan Sep 2011 Project Plan Dissemination/liaison with community Dec 2011, July, Conference paper/participation, Sep, Dec 2012+ online presence, plus ongoing involvement at any QTI profiling meetings Write final project blog entry Feb 2013 Final report Project management Evaluate software Evaluate project Evaulation tasks Dec 2012 – Jan Software evaluation report 2013 (also ongoing – see paragraphs 20-24) Dec 2012 – Jan Project evaluation report 2013 Technology transfer/development tasks Initial deployment of existing tools at Sep 2011 Existing tools installed and client institutions operational at receiving institutions First use of tools at client institutions October 2011 Feedback for Sprint 1 Sprint Planning meeting 1 November 2011 Product backlog document (PBD) Sprint 1/ongoing client use of existing Dec 2011/Jan 2012 Iteration 1 of software deployed tools Planning meeting for Sprint 2 Jan 2012 Modified PBD Sprint 2/client use of iteration 1 Feb/Mar 2012 Iteration 2 of software Planning meeting for Sprint 3 Mar 2012 Modified PBD Sprint 3/client use of iteration 2 Apr/May 2012 Iteration 3 of software Planning meeting for Sprint 4 May 2012 Modified PBD Sprint 4/client use of iteration 3 June/July 2012 Iteration 4 of software Planning meeting for Sprint 5 July 2012 Modified PBD Sprint 5/client use of iteration 5 Aug/Sep 2012 Iteration 5 of software Planning meeting for Sprint 6 Sep 2012 Modified PBD Sprint 6/first client use of iteration 6 Oct/Nov 2012 Final version of software Ongoing use of (final) iteration 6 December 2012Feeds into software/project ongoing evaluation report later Post development support November 2012Contributes to support site ongoing Duration (days) 4.5 1 6 5 4 4 2 5 0.5 20 2 23 2 21 2 21 2 21 2 16 20+ ongoing 10 Table 2 - project tasks and timings 18. Note that for many tasks, the durations given in table 2 involve several project members and should not be mistaken for person days. For example, “Sprint 2/client use of iteration 1” involves the lead !"#$%% &'($%% )*+$%% ,"'$%% -./$%0 1"2$%0 3.4$%0 5#4$%0 3.6$%0 -7/$%0 -78$%0 579$%0 !"#$%0 &'($%0 )*+$%0 ,"'$%0 -./$%: 1"2$%: developer working on new code to accommodate the outputs, while the end-users make use of the software in their day-to-day work, with a view to informing the next planning meeting. ,*'7;"/.(<*/=>4*?"'(@3./.9";"/( !"#$%&'()*+*,%-%+' .#+/0"-(!"#$%&'(!1*+ 2033%-0+*'0#+ 4+'%"0-(5%6#"' 70+*1(5%6#"' A+.87.(<*/ 8#/'9*"%(:;*1<*'0#+ !"#$%&'(:;*1<*'0#+ B"'C/*8*[email protected]/DE"4=F"+"8*#;"/( 4+0'0*1(=%61#>-%+'(#/('##13('#(&10%+'3 70"3'(<3%(#/('##13(?>(&10%+'3 86"0+'(@(61*++0+, 86"0+'(@(&10%+'(<3%(#/(%A03'0+,('##13 86"0+'(B(61*++0+, 86"0+'(B(&10%+'(<3%(#/(0'%"*'0#+(B 86"0+'(C(61*++0+, 86"0+'(C(&10%+'(<3%(#/(0'%"*'0#+(C 86"0+'(D(61*++0+, 86"0+'(D(&10%+'(<3%(#/(0'%"*'0#+(C 86"0+'(E(61*++0+, 86"0+'(E(&10%+'(<3%(#/(0'%"*'0#+(D 86"0+'(F(61*++0+, 86"0+'(F(&10%+'(<3%(#/(0'%"*'0#+(E Figure 2 - High level overview of proposed project schedule Risk Analysis Risk P (1-5) 2 S (1-5) 5 Score (PxS) 10 Delays occur in development/ feedback cycle Withdrawal of client institution 3 4 12 2 3 6 Changes to existing software prove to be nonfeasible, either in the timeframe or with available expertise 2 3 6 Loss of key staff or consultants. Mitigation Documentation of plans and technical artefacts will reduce impact and allow for others to assume responsibility. Relationships from past projects exist that allow for experts outside the present consortium to be drafted in if needed. Project team are all in post and/or availability confirmed at this point in time. The number of development “sprints” or their duration can be tweaked, depending on needs, to compensate for such delays. If required, lead institution from sister project could assume role of client on this project. Additionally, new client institution(s) can be sourced from already interested parties in the community. Development personnel involved wrote the existing software, so are intimately familiar with it. Agile development approach will ensure requirements and specified functionality are realistic. Table 3 – Risks and Mitigations (P=Probability S=Severity) Deliverables 19. This project will deliver the following: • • • • • • • • A universally accessible QTI question authoring tool, based on Mathqurate and Aqurate, that can be used by someone new to both QTI and to the authoring tool itself with a minimum of effort and tuition. A universally accessible QTI test authoring tool, based on Spectatus that can be used by someone new to both QTI and to the authoring tool itself with a minimum of effort and tuition. • NB: Based on user feedback it may be considered desirable to merge question and test authoring into a single application. • Software artefacts will be provided as an installable binary for the major operating systems and will be available from the project website/blog, as well as from other appropriate online locations (e.g. JISC Design Studio, KU Learning Technology Research Group web site, etc) Source code available via SourceForge (or similar open repository), offered under an appropriate open source licence. Developer documentation for the software, targeted at those wishing to make changes to the source code. This to include class diagrams and Javadoc documentation. Technical documentation for the software, targeted at IT administrators and expert users who will support end users in the use of the application(s). User documentation for the software, targeted at end users. A community web presence, to include a blog, wiki and forum/discussion area so as to promote inter-institutional communication and collaboration across three areas: • Software development • Day to day use. Suggested subforums might include areas such as “tips and tricks”, tutorials and guides, and/or an area for peer-to-peer support where members of the end-user community can source input from other end-users • Content sharing and collaboration Journal/conference papers over the course of the lifetime of the project Evaluation Mechanisms 20. The Agile approach that will be taken incorporates a continuous cycle of evaluation throughout the software development cycle, indicated by the lighter shaded areas in Figure 2. As noted previously, this will be a crucial part of the evolution of the software, and will take place after each iteration to inform subsequent development work. 21. Towards the end of the project a period of two months (December 2012-January 2013) will formally be devoted to evaluation across two discrete strands: software and project, as evident in figure 2. 22. In conjunction with the client institutions and the user community, the software strand will evaluate the final iteration of the software against the project objective, specifically: can a novice user with no prior knowledge of the software or of QTI successfully create electronic assessment content? A series of “goals” will be created where a “guinea pig” user will be asked to author a piece of content ranging from a simple multiple choice question (MCQ) to a more complex question that evaluates user input – the precise form of the latter will obviously depend on the functionality that arises from the Agile process. These “guinea pig” users will be selected either from within the partner institutions or institutions who have become involved via the online community, but it is key that these users be genuinely new to the tools, the project and QTI itself. The aim is to determine the feasibility of a truly novice user authoring content – if such a user succeeds in the specified “goals”, we will have created a truly transferable piece of software. 23. The second strand of evaluation will focus on the project as a whole, specifically with regard to the project management and Agile development approaches. This will seek to ascertain the efficiency of these processes, particularly with respect to the distances involved and the need to adapt the Scrum methodology to an online, non-physical paradigm, where availability times of team members do not necessarily coincide. While there is research to indicate that “distributed” Scrum9 can be successful, we 9 Essentially, Scrum spread out over large distances and, potentially, timezones. See http://www.goodagile.com/distributedscrumprimer/. Also see Fully Distributed Scrum: Linear Scalability of Production between San Francisco and India – available from http://jeffsutherland.com/SutherlandFullyDistributedScrumSFIndiaAgile2009.pdf. Both accessed 14th July 2010. are also proposing to stretch the timescales of the methodology beyond those usually suggested. Our second evaluatory strand will examine whether this leisurely flavour of Scrum worked, whether it added value to the project and whether it would be advisable to adopt it for future similar projects. 24. It is expected that evaluation will also continue past the end of the project within the wider community, via the online arena, and will continue to shape development of the tools beyond the end of the project. The lighter grey areas in Figure 3 for February 2013 denote this: while the chart ends at this point, this ongoing evaluation will continue beyond the boundaries of the chart. IPR position 25. All software to be used or produced within the project already bears an open source licence. All documentation created by the project will be shared under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike licence. d) Engagement with the community 26. Past projects have made their software artefacts available under open source licences and this will continue to be the case here. Source code will be made available via SourceForge. This is crucial if the tools are to be truly sustainable, allowing for future development of the tools beyond the life of this project. Learning technologists within the client institutions will be provided with support in the deployment of the tools and their modification. In combination with the documentation that will be available on the wiki, this will enable on-site technology professionals at the client institutions to continue to support and develop the tools beyond the life of the current project, arming the future community and facilitating post-project development work. The two client institutions will be able to support each other and learn from the others’ experience, sharing any new knowledge or modifications, which should provide the foundation for a development community beyond the life of the project itself. Over the course of the project, opportunities for dissemination will enable us to demonstrate the tools to other colleagues. There have been several who have expressed an interest via conferences and other discussion forums. 27. The QTI-IPS project is currently creating a support site for both technical and academic users of QTIv2.1, including documentation and annotated example questions and code samples. These facilities will be available for the client institutions within this project and its sister project, and indeed for others who adopt the tools, and it is expected that such use will contribute to the sustainability of the support site itself, as well as that of the tools. Several proposed team members of this project are currently engaged on the QTI-IPS project, which will provide useful continuity of knowledge and expertise, and ensure that its resources can quickly be applied here. 28. As noted previously, the relationship with the sister QTIDI project is integral. The lead developer of the Uniqurate project is embedded on QTIDI, and the PI of QTIDI embedded here. This will not only ensure constant engagement with the other project, but also vital cross-pollination of knowledge between the two. 29. To enable the embedding of the agile approach and assure sustainability several complementary forms of media will be utilised: • For project documentation a Wiki (and blogs were appropriate) with an RSS feed will be used. • Output in terms of documentation and code from the Sprints will be published through the Wiki and on SourceForge. • For project ‘narrowcast’ communication a Twitter hashtag of #qtitools will be exploited. • For project ‘broadcast’ communication a Twitter hashtag of #qti will be deployed and encouraged to be taken up by other related projects. • The project team and surrounding community are already embedded into the existing CETISAssessment-SIG through recent project work – this will continue. • The outputs will be exhibited nationally at conferences including ALT-C and CAA, and internationally via the IMS. 30. In the past OSS Watch have been an invaluable resource, and this is expected to continue in this project. We expect to liaise closely with them to ensure that both the letter and the spirit of open source licencing is met, both with respect to the software artefacts we produce, but also the libraries and other software we may leverage within our tools. The lead developer will liaise with OSS Watch when new open source libraries and code not directly authored by the project team are introduced into the project, this contact to take place during and as an integral part of development sprints. This will ensure that the wider implications of such inclusion are adequately understood, and help avoid potential incompatibilities between different open source licences. 31. There are already lines of communication in place between individuals on the project team and JISCCETIS, with several already attending JISC programme meetings in their existing capacities. These pre-existing relationships will be leveraged to ensure appropriate engagement with the programme and will be supplemented by the links with sister project QTIDI. 32. The team has been contacted by the HE-STEM project10 and we expect to engage with them during the project. Stakeholders Stakeholder Interest / stake Importance Senior management at partner institutions • HEFCE, JISC and HEA • IMS • UK Examination Authorities • Worldwide Education/Training community Software engineers and QTI specialists Producers of assessment resources Successful outcome to project Medium Sustainable, user-friendly tools conforming to QTIv2.1 standard made available for creating assessment resources High Will see their investment in QTI enhanced Rich cross-platform assessment items can be authored and combined into assessments Future-proofing, sharing and repurposing of resources is facilitated Continued UK involvement in standards-conformant eassessment systems development High End-users JISC CETIS Assessment SIG Medium High Medium Table 4 - Stakeholder analysis 33. The adoption of sophisticated authoring tools and the creation of more advanced question types requires support. Although this project is of relatively short duration, the groundwork for this support provision can be put in place and its efficacy investigated. 34. The community of e-assessment users needs to be made aware of the benefits of QTI and engaged in its implementation within their institutions. This is particularly important for those who own large collections of questions and tests, including the examination authorities in the UK. The project will enable users to engage with QTI with confidence that the standards-based resources and tools they are using are sustainable. Dissemination 35. Along with the dissemination that will happen organically via the online channels within the growing community, It is expected that the client institutions will disseminate the tools to their colleagues within the institutions. 36. The software outputs of the project will be disseminated at a JISC-CETIS meeting during 2012 and to at least two UK national conferences. These will be selected from CAA2012, ALT-C 2012 and MSOR 2012. A presentation at the Scottish E-Assessment Conference in August 2012 is also likely. 10 http://www.hestem.ac.uk/activity/integrating-formative-and-summative-e-assessment-mathematics-teaching-and-learningfirst-an (accessed 14th July 2010) e) Budget Directly Incurred August 11– July 12 August 12– July 13 August 13– July 14 TOTAL £ Staff (Strand A only) Neve sp33 0.6fte(3dpw) Kingston £17,252 £8,963 £0 £26,215 Stephen Spencer 0.05FTE(82.5hpa) sp26 Harper Adams e-Learning £957Developer £690 £0 £1,647 Michael Aherne 0.05FTE(82.5hpa) sp38 Strathclyde e-Learning £1,501 Developer £1,000 £0 £2,501 Niall Barr 0.05FTE(82.5hpa) sp36 Glasgow £1,294 £933 £0 £2,227 Sue Milne 9 days @ £422pd £2,110 £1,688 £0 £3,798 Total Directly Incurred Staff (A) £23,114 £13,274 £0 £36,388 Non-Staff Travel and expenses Hardware/software Dissemination Evaluation Other Total Directly Incurred Non-Staff (B) August 11– July 12 £600 £0 £400 £0 August 13– July 14 (Strand TOTAL A only) £ £1,000 £1,600 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £0 £24,114 £14,874 £0 £ Directly Incurred Total (C) (A+B=C) Directly Allocated August 12– July 13 £600 £0 £400 £600 £ August 11– July 12 August 12– July 13 £1,200 £0 £800 £600 £0 £2,600 £38,988 August 13– July 14 (Strand TOTAL A only) £ Staff Estates Other Directly Allocated Total (D) £9,075 £3,507 £0 £12,582 £5,560 £2,500 £0 £8,060 £0 £0 £0 £0 £14,634 £6,008 £0 £20,642 Indirect Costs (E) £21,934 £15,868 £0 £37,802 Total Project Cost (C+D+E) Amount Requested from JISC Institutional Contributions £58,630 £24,566 £34,063 £38,802 £15,427 £23,375 £0 £0 £0 £97,432 £39,994 £57,438 Percentage Contributions over the life of JISC the project Partners 41% No. FTEs used to calculate indirect and estates charges, and staff included No FTEs Total 59% Which Staff 0.7 Paul Neve Kingston Stephen Spencer Harper Adams Michael Aherne Strathclyde Niall Barr Glasgow David Livingstone Kingston Graham Alsop Kingston Roger GreenHalgh Harper Adams David White Harper Adams Sue Barnes Strathclyde 100% b. Project team experience 37. Paul Neve MSc (Kingston) has a wealth of experience developing software solutions for educational needs. He was Senior E-Learning Software Developer on the FETLAR project, involved with the development of the Mathqurate QTI item authoring tool, author of the Spectatus QTI test authoring tool, and creator of the FETLAR virtual appliance which provided an instantly deployable package of all FETLAR project outputs, both software and content. He is also the author of the WLab online learning environment for delivering IT-related practical workshops, which presented at ALT-C 2010. In his current position as a Learning Technologist at Kingston University he is developing the NoobLab electronic learning suite for teaching introductory computer programming. He will act as development and technical lead on this project. 38. David Livingstone BSc MSc (Kingston) will share PI and PM responsibilities with Graham Alsop. He is a Senior Lecturer in the Faculty of Computing, Information Systems and Mathematics. David’s research interests include educational technologies, GIS and location-based services. He was the joint recipient in 2001 of the Journal of Geography in Higher Education Biennial Award for Promoting Excellence in Teaching and Learning. He has successfully managed, delivered and contributed to previous JISC development and demonstration projects, including Aqurate, MathAssess and FETLAR. 39. Graham Alsop BSc MSc (Kingston) will share PI and PM responsibilities with David Livingstone. He is a Principal Lecturer in Computing and Information Systems, Field Leader and has been researching the use of learning technologies for some years. He leads the Learning technology Research Group in the School. He was Faculty Educational Technology Leader 2000-2006 (aiding the implementation and use of Blackboard and other learning technologies into teaching) and Associate Director (Learning and Teaching) for the New Technology Institute 2002-2004/ He managed the JISC funded Aqurate’s project 2007-08, Aqurate’s contribution to MathAssess 2008, and the follow on involvement in FETLAR. 40. Michael Aherne (Strathclyde) has worked in the education sector as a software developer for over twelve years. He has been involved in running and supporting Virtual Learning Environments, including WebCT and Moodle, for over 8 years, and was a lead developer on the COLEG Online Assessment Project (COLA), which produced QTI items from Microsoft Word templates. 41. Sue Barnes (Strathclyde) has a PhD in Maths from Glasgow University. She taught Maths in secondary schools for many years and since completing her PhD has managed the Maths Skills Support Centre and worked as a Learning Technology Advisor at the University of Strathclyde. 42. Niall Barr (Glasgow) has been deeply involved with interoperability standards including QTI 2.0 and 2.1, Tools Interoperability 1.0 and the Common Cartridge. He currently works at the Learning & Teaching Centre, supporting and developing learning technology. As the University's representative on the IMS Technical Advisory Board and a member of the QTI 2.1 working group, he will oversee the development and packaging aspects of the project. 43. Roger Greenhaigh BSc, MSc, DIC, FRES, CertEd (Harper Adams) is Head of Information Services at Harper Adams University College. He is an IT solutions architect and software development team leader with further experience of both teaching and eLearning delivery. He has institutional project leadership experience on a number of HEFCE-, HEIF- and JISC-funded projects including the NationalRural Knowledge Exchange, OpenFields open-access repository and Ripple Cascade OER projects. He has particular interests in syndication of digital resources. 44. David White BSc, MSc, CEng, CEnv, FIAgrE, MIMechE (Harper Adams) is a Senior Lecturer in Engineering at Harper Adams University College. He is a mechanical/agricultural engineer with 20 years experience teaching mathematics, statics and dynamics, the design of agricultural machinery and off road vehicles at degree and masters level. He has carried out applied research for external organisations and is currently supervising several postgraduate students. David is Vice-President of the Institution of Agricultural Engineers. 45. Stephen Spencer (Harper Adams) is an eLearning Developer at Harper Adams University College. He has responsibility for development and delivery of the Harper Adams Moodle VLE, and has technical strengths in handling the underpinning PHP, MySQL and XML framework, skills which have been invaluable in the development of custom VLE plug-ins, VLE/eAssessment platform interoperability, and user interface development. Stephen also provides a range of end-user support services to the various types of Harper Adams VLE users. 46. Sue Milne was director of the CALMAT group at Glasgow Caledonian University when they implemented QTI v2.0 for the MELA e-learning system, and was a consultant to the MathAssess and FETLAR projects. She has extensive experience of authoring QTI questions over many years, and is familiar with the QTI2.1 specification and the profiles being developed. She will author the documentation and act as a QTI expert on this project.
© Copyright 2020