C-SAP OER Project Toolkit
C-SAP OER Project Toolkit 1
Introduction 1
Specification 1: Containing website 1
1.1 User Description 1
1.2 Look and Feel Statement 2
1.3 Pages within the website 3
1.4 Proposed Delivery Platform Description 3
Specification 2: Case Study Carousel and Containing Elements 4
2.1 Look and Feel Statement 4
2.2 Information fields within the case study container 4
Specification 3: Mapping Tool 6
3.1 Look and Feel Statement 6
Specification 4: Diagnostic Tool 6
4.1 Look and Feel Statement 6
Specification 5: Generative Tool 6
5.1 Look and Feel Statement 6
Project toolkit schedule 6
Authors: Darren Marsh, Anna Gruszczynska, Richard Pountney
Date: 17 December 2009
Version: 1.0
Introduction
This document is a specification towards the C-SAP OER Project Toolkit. We envisage the toolkit, holistically, as a containing website with a number of elements; some drawing upon the research and information developed as part of the project, and more specifically the case studies with our project partners and three ‘tools’ to support development and release of open educational resources in the socials sciences. So we propose 5 specifications in total as part of this overall toolkit, the development of these will be iterative in phases which will overlap with continued work with our project partners.
· Specification 1: containing website
· Specification 2: case study carousel and elements
· Specification 3: mapping tool
· Specification 4: diagnostic tool
· Specification 5: generative tool
Specification 1: Containing website
1.1 User Description
Several categories of System user are anticipated. These include:
[system] Front-end Visitor [example]
[system] Front-end User [specify]
[system]Developer [specify]
Content Developer [specify]
The following tables show the level of ICT competence, the level of technology needed (system specification), the environment that is most likely to be used and the rights for reading, writing to and modifying the system.
[System] Front-end Visitor: (staff from HEI social science departments, students, others with interest in OER, possible global visitors)Competence / General proficiency / experience in the use of web based interactive media.
System Specification / Computer capable of connecting to the Internet (min. 56K connection), flash enable web browser / detecting script. Flash based video with audio, streamed rather than downloaded. Compatible with all common web browsers and recent versions.
Environment / On campus, home (min. 56K connection).
Rights / No log access or cookies required.
[System] Front-end User: [mainly as above]
Competence / General proficiency / experience in the use of web based interactive media.
System Specification / Computer capable of connecting to the Internet (min. 56K connection), flash enable web browser / detecting script. Flash based video with audio – control over playback and sound level.
Environment / On campus, home (min. 56K connection).
Rights / No rights management required.
[System] Developer: (Content and Design developer(s) – the core team)
Competence / Proficient in Flash, HTML coding, multimedia.
System Specification / HTML based container with Flash carousel.
Environment / Local hosted development, transfer to C-SAP IIS server.
Rights / Super Administrator Access - read and write access to whole site.
Content Providers: (Project partners, core team provide to lead developer)
Competence / Subject knowledge and expertise, use of project wiki to help structure and compile case study.
System Specification / Computer capable of connecting to the Internet (min. 56K connection) for wiki, web cam / camcorder for source video material.
Environment / Author Access Normal working environment (home, on campus or third party work context).
Rights / Registered Access - read/write access to wiki.
1.2 Look and Feel Statement
Our thinking about the possible look and feel of the containing website and our separate toolkit areas has varied and been influenced by many potential examples, from educational project websites to commercial online projects. Our background ideas can be seen in the project wiki, and we are continuing to refine this:
https://csapoer.pbworks.com/Reflections-on-the-toolkit-idea
Navigation through the website will be clear and well structured, possibly via the traditional left hand menu or top level menu assisted by a breadcrumb trail. To further assist the user Search and Site Map functionality will also be given. A combination of templates and cascading style sheets will give total control over the look and feel of the site and can be changed with the minimum effort and time.
Some other visual aspects to the toolkit website which we hope will be helpful:
· The tone of the site should be authoritative but not ‘official’
· Good use of white-space as background
· Clean and reasonably ‘friendly’ interface, should not inhibit users from offering comment back to C-SAP
· Colour use could echo and compliment standard C-SAP logo in blue pantone 279
· C-SAP, HEA and JISC logos displayed in some area of screen (top or bottom)
· A mix of text, images, other visual elements
· Possibility of developing an initial ‘skin’ with a refined skin at later phase
· Follow good practice as far as possible with SENDA accessibility legislation and W3C guidelines. Explore for example possibility of a text only version.
1.3 Pages within the website
At the moment we envisage containing website include the following individual pages as a minimum:
o Introduction and background
o About the project
o Project team
o Case study interface leading to:
o 6 individual case study pages/sections
o Mapping tool
o Diagnostic tool
o Generative tool
o Pedagogic literature review
o Other resources
o Project evaluation
o Future directions
o Contact us
o Feedback and comments
1.4 Proposed Delivery Platform Description
The final delivery platform for the toolkit website will be the C-SAP server, based at the university of Birmingham. Currently the core C-SAP web presence is being redeveloped and moved to a new server location. It is anticipated that the final released case studies / toolkit resource will be hosted on this server, otherwise our existing server arrangements will provide a sufficient platform until the new server is available. The existing server operates IIS and access can be negotiated via support at University of Birmingham. One possible model we have identified is the NQT improvement study carousel, http://www.nqtstudy.info/.
Specification 2: Case Study Carousel and Containing Elements
2.1 Look and Feel Statement
The flash based case studies should be presented in a clean and navigable design. The Sheffield Hallam CPD carousel offers a possible model, we are also welcoming of other potential carousel models that might be suggested.
2.2 Information fields within the case study container
The flash based carousel will lead the user into the 6 case studies based around each of the 6 academic partners in the project:
· Dr Mª Àngels Trias i Valls - Senior Research Assistant, Institute of Contemporary European Studies, Regent’s College London
· Dr Helen Jones - Principal Lecturer in Criminology, Faculty of Humanities & Social Science, Manchester Metropolitan University
· Dr Pam Lowe – Lecturer in Sociology, School of Languages and Social Sciences, Aston University
· Professor Dave Harris - SPEL, University College Plymouth St Mark & St John
· Dr Cathy Gormly-Heenan - Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, Social and Policy Research Institute, University of Ulster
· Dr Jonathan Parker - Senior Lecturer in Politics, School of Politics, International Relations and Philosophy (SPIRE), Keele University
However, it has to be noted that the case studies will primarily be defined by the subject and the module. The partners will be the authors of the case studies, but not the subjects as such. During phase 1 (see attached schedule) we will provide further details on this.
Through a process of elicitation and reflection, helped by development activities set for the partners in the project wiki, and workshops led by the project team, we envisage the following elements within each case study. Each would probably be contained within a single html page linking from the carousel interface:
Element / Media type / Particular System Requirement1. Initial content mapping
a. Module title / Text / None
b. Credit weighting / Text / None
c. Undergrad level / Text / None
d. Relationship to original course i.e. mandatory / Text / None
e. Name of syllabus / programme / Text / None
f. Mapping to JACS code
g. Mapping to subject benchmarks
h. Mapping to pedagogic vocab (to be advised)
2. Structure of exemplar module
a. Module handbook (to be developed for OER) – suggest broken into categories for display:
- outline of content and weekly structure
- learning outcomes
- assessment methods
- assessment questions
- reading lists
- links to key resources / Text / Link to resource location (ie. JORUM / slidershare).
OR
These de-contextualised handbook elements available as .doc / .pdf download from carousel?
b. Weekly materials
- list with synopsis
- introductory / first week material available to view / download / .ppt, .doc, .pdf, web links (i.e. xerte objects) / Link to resource location (ie. JORUM / slidershare).
- download week 1 slides / material
c. Any other supporting local context (feedback from students, anecdote, photographs of lecture room) / Text / image
3. Partner narrative
a. ‘Before’ commentary, how module typically delivered, rooms, technology, numbers of students, how reviewed / Text / None
b. ‘Process’ commentary, reflections on material ownership re institution, consortium process, motivations to share and release, copyright sensitive elements in materials, review process for materials, experience of toolkit development / Text / None
c. ‘After’ commentary, what has changed in the materials, insights into own practice, how would encourage others to use the material, what else can be developed and refined for OER, issues of capturing tacit practice, issues of discovery and visibility of OER material, issues of ‘culture change’ and sustainability to OER / Text / None
d. Video commentary to accompany the partner narrative / Video with transcript / Display video for user.
Specification 3: Mapping Tool
[Will be developed in phase 2, see schedule below]
3.1 Look and Feel Statement
3.2 Information fields within the case study container
Specification 4: Diagnostic Tool
[Will be developed in phase 3, see schedule below]
4.1 Look and Feel Statement
4.2 Information fields within the case study container
Specification 5: Generative Tool
[Will be developed in phase 3, see schedule below]
5.1 Look and Feel Statement
5.2 Information fields within the case study container
Project toolkit schedule
Toolkit development timetable – December 17th 2009 versionPhase / To do / Objects / Target date / Estimated
days
1. Mid December – mid January / Develop a container website (“wrap-around” website) / See specification document, section 1.3 / Until January 18th (so that project partners can have a look at early visualisations) / 5 days
Develop case studies carousel / Flash-based tool, text and rich media
Develop case studies containers / See specification document, section 2.2
Develop prototype for mapping tool
Create visualisations prototype – a model / Will be advised following consultation on the 12th January meeting in Sheffield
2. Mid January- mid February [tbc] / Develop version 1.0 of mapping tool / Will be advised following phase 1 / On 25th Jan, we will be in position to advise in more detail on tasks in phase 2 / 5 days
Develop draft versions of diagnostic tool / Will be advised following phase 1
Review “wrap-around” website / Will be advised following phase 1
Review case study containers (so that they’re more dynamic/interactive) / Text
Video
Review case studies containers / Will be advised following phase 1
Develop draft version of generative tool / To be advised
3. Mid February – mid March [tbc] / Develop version 1.0 of diagnostic tool / To be advised / To be advised / 5 days
Review mapping tool / Will be specified following phase 2
Review website (start populating with resources from project wiki) / Text
Video
Review case study containers (start populating with content as described in specification document) / Video
Text
ppt, .pdf, web links (i.e. xerte objects)
Review case study carousel / Will be specified following phase 2
Develop final version of generative tool / Will be specified following phase 3
4. Mid March-mid April / Develop final version of diagnostic tool / Will be specified following phase 3 / To be advised – but
dictated by project timeline / 6 days
Develop final version of mapping tool / Will be specified following phase 3
Develop final version of generative tool / Will be specified following phase 3
Develop final version of website / Will be specified following phase 3
Develop final version of case study carousel / Will be specified following phase 3
Develop final version of case studies / Will be specified following phase 3
5. End of April / Release final version of toolkit / Combination of five elements outlined in the specification document:
-“wrap-around” website
-case studies carousel
-mapping tool
-generative tool
-diagnostic tool / Ideally – 30th April (official project end date) / 2 days
Total estimated days for developer / 23 days
C-SAP OER Project Toolkit Specification Document v1 17 Dec2009 7