Identify Incentives That Would Encourage Staff to Contribute to the Repository for Re-Use

Identify Incentives That Would Encourage Staff to Contribute to the Repository for Re-Use

Meeting / Educational Technology Advisory Group
Date / Friday 29th June2007
Time / 9.00am – 10.00am
Location / 8.8.23
Attendees / Gary Allan, Lyn Atkinson, Prof Jim Barber, Jim McGovern, Amgad Louka(Chair),Joyce Kirk,Warren Nageswaran,Simon Wilkinson, Graham Bell
Guests / April Weiss, Malcolm McCormick, Stephen Gillespie
Apologies / Rod Van den Akker, Craig Anderson, Ellie Johns
Item / Discussion/Outcomes / Action
Confirmation of Notes / The minutes 12 June2007 meeting were accepted as a true and accurate record of proceedings.
Business from previous minutes
Business / 3.1LCMS Final report – Simon Wilkinson
The Chair welcomed Stephen Gillespie, April Weiss and Malcolm McCormack to the meeting.
Simon commenced by noting an error in the report on Page 23. The cost of purchasing the Equella software should be changed from $158,000 to $108,000.
The final report contains 16 recommendations that relate to actions and considerations for implementing a LCMS that is sustainable, effective in meeting the needs of individuals and the university, easy to use and optimizes the level of acceptance and adoption by the RMIT community. The overarching recommendation was:
Given the potential benefits that the university will derive from the system the university should continue to refine the LCMS and workflow processes as recommended in this report with a view to a full implementation.
During Simons report a number of issues and comments were raised:
  • Identify incentives that would encourage staff to contribute to the repository for re-use
  • The DVC commented that one approach could be analogous to research which places great significance and rewards the number of citations. A similar model could be considered for learning content. Could also be incorporated in promotion criteria for teachers.
  • Usage statistics can be generated by the system.
  • The need to minimize the number of fields deemed mandatory in the contribution template (metadata schema)
  • Metadata quality is critical for retrieval
  • Metadata quality is more critical in areas of the repository that are open for others to use (Institution-wide, School level).
  • More work is required to identify an appropriate schema that allows interoperability with other repositories, particular mention of the TAFE VC.
  • Federation is important to achieving critical mass of content in the repository, ensuring it is more relevant.
  • There are different roles in producing quality metadata – content expert and metadata QA.
  • It is conceivable for library staff to provide a QA moderation service, however resources to do this needs to be considered as additional not absorbed by existing.
  • Resouces to support the implementation of a LCMS need to consider the initial uploading of legacy content, followed by ongoing contribution.
  • It would be useful to incorporate a way of generating CVs from the repository
  • Need to be able to bulk upload content.
  • The webfarm serves a number of purposes and whilst the introduction of an LCMS may replace some of these, it will still be required.
  • RQF guidelines have not been finalised. However an interim repository has been developed to allow limited access by DEST assessors to research output. A longer term solution for the research repository requirements of the university is under scope.
  • The requirements for Research repositories and Learning Content repositories need to be considered together. Potential synergies require an institutional approach to both.
  • Need to establish a roadmap.
More discussion was had but it was agreed that much of the detail needs to be considered as we move forward. It was agreed that the DVC meets with Craig Anderson to discuss the possibility and appropriateness of the Library becoming the key group to advance the project.
In light of the many potential applications of a repository, it can be considered more as an Academic Content Management System than purely one for learning content.
Amgad thanked Simon for the report and acknowledged Henric Beiers and Mike Harris for their contribution to the project.
3.2Supporting innovative Ed Tech Applications – Jim McGovern
This agenda item was business from a previous meeting.
Jim McGovern presented a revised/simplified instrument and process for staff to request support for innovative EdTech applications.
The following comments and points were made:
  • The request needs to be approved/supported by the DAD or their delegate
  • It is carried forward by the PITM
  • There is an urgent need for a sandpit/test-bed environment. Jim McGovern has been working with Application Services to address this. A sandpit Blackboard environment is relatively easy to establish and could be used to trial things like Building blocks.
  • A statement should be included at the beginning of the document that gives primacy to educational needs.
  • Assessment of requests should include their alignment with the Academic and Strategic plans.
  • How are L&T vs Research priorities determined?
  • A suggestion was made that a similar process could be employed by Research. A consolidated list could then be presented to ICT Strategy committee for prioritisation. This would mainly relate to requests that require significant resources. Common sense should prevail for relatively routine or minor requests. Regardless, a comprehensive list of all requests should be presented to ETAG regularly.
  • Consideration should also be given to preventing initiatives deemed risky from being implemented independently by staff.
  • Jim Mc, Rod, Lyn, Warren and John to determine how the instrument and process will be implemented.
3.3Lectopia update & stage 2 – Amgad Louka
Amgad gave a report on the status of the Stage 1 implementation.
In preparation for further rollout, Amgad had distributed a list of Stage 2 priority venues two weeks prior for consideration by ETAG.
John Benwell undertook to investigate further requirements for Lectopia at the Brunswick campus and inform Amgad by Tuesday next week.
There is a need for more facilities in Business and the original quote for the rooms of $32,000 to be questioned, as it may have included AMX etc. Going back to Rutledge to clarify these quotes.
Amgad expressed the need for more Lectopia enabled venues in Business. The constraint in providing these has been the high cost to convert these rooms as quoted in Stage 1 ($32,000 each). Amgad was not convinced that the cost provided by Rutledge was the only possible solution and will follow up alternatives with Rutledge.
Other Business:
Lyn explained the method used by Business for determining the MOP usage statistics. She suggested that a standard method be used by all portfolios. This standard refers to ongoing regular reports on usage.
Amgad reminded members that a Business Analyst was assigned to prepare a reporting template on MOP usage which will be used to provide MOP usage statistics via OPIS for Program Annual Reporting.
Meeting closed at 10.40am. / DVC Academic
John Benwell.
Amgad Louka
Jim Mc, Rod, Lyn, Warren, John
Other Business / No other business discussed.
Date, Time & Location of Next Meeting / Friday 10 August 9.00amin 8.8.23

Document: eTAG Notes 29 June 2007 draft.doc

Status: Draft /UNAPPROVEDAuthor: Ellie Johns

Version: 1.0Save Date: 06/07/07

DocRef: TRIMPage 1 of 4