Interesting Guardian articles:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/15/computers-incorporate-spyware-dangers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/mar/17/the-master-switch-tim-wu-internet
Monday, 21 March 2011
The completion of the first cohort of the eComms FdA
The first, RED, cohort of the eComms FdA have now completed their studies. The Exam Board ratified the marks in February and these students are now awaiting the start of the online Top Up, delivered by SHU, which will begin in September this year.
The second, BLUE, cohort are now in their sixth semester and will complete their studies with us in July, and so will also be in time to start the Top Up in September.
There are also four more cohorts moving through the degree: the GREEN cohort now in Semester 4, the ORANGE cohort now in Semester 3 and the YELLOW and PURPLE cohorts (which have been temporarily combined) now in Semester. The ORANGE and PURPLE cohorts are following the new Public Services Pathway of the degree.
Things have settled down now that all the modules have been written and all the content has been placed online. The team is now working on how to embed this new work into the College and how to set up appropriate procedures and practices so that we can work more efficiently.
The second, BLUE, cohort are now in their sixth semester and will complete their studies with us in July, and so will also be in time to start the Top Up in September.
There are also four more cohorts moving through the degree: the GREEN cohort now in Semester 4, the ORANGE cohort now in Semester 3 and the YELLOW and PURPLE cohorts (which have been temporarily combined) now in Semester. The ORANGE and PURPLE cohorts are following the new Public Services Pathway of the degree.
Things have settled down now that all the modules have been written and all the content has been placed online. The team is now working on how to embed this new work into the College and how to set up appropriate procedures and practices so that we can work more efficiently.
Saturday, 27 February 2010
The completion of the validation for the eCommunications PS FdA
I completed the final draft of the validation document on the 8th of February, incorporating all the final changes that I had been asked to make. This document now becomes the 'definitive document' for the course. I have waited until now to see if any further action was required but I have not been asked to do anything apart from needing to address a typo and being asked to remove the CVs from the 'definitive document'. So I am now assuming that the whole process is complete.
This process has taken a long time and I have reflected in earlier posts on how onerous it has been. The main difficulty has been that there seem to have been almost limitless opportunities for various people from SHU to have asked me to make changes or to ask me to respond to questions. The first validation, for the eCommunications FdA took less time because we submitted the final draft of the validation document, responded to a few requests for changes and then had to attend a F2F validation where a list of recommendations were made. following these recommendations being addressed the process was complete.
I now appreciate that the many opportunities to make points/ask questions/request changes etc made this most recent validation so complex and lengthy, also some SHU people were not fully aware of of the nature of online delivery. An issue that we were asked to consider several times was in-module retrieval, this was not appropriate to us, but I now see that in-module retrieval can be very useful for other, more traditionally organised FDs and that it has been brought in to address student problems with completing modules.
This process has taken a long time and I have reflected in earlier posts on how onerous it has been. The main difficulty has been that there seem to have been almost limitless opportunities for various people from SHU to have asked me to make changes or to ask me to respond to questions. The first validation, for the eCommunications FdA took less time because we submitted the final draft of the validation document, responded to a few requests for changes and then had to attend a F2F validation where a list of recommendations were made. following these recommendations being addressed the process was complete.
I now appreciate that the many opportunities to make points/ask questions/request changes etc made this most recent validation so complex and lengthy, also some SHU people were not fully aware of of the nature of online delivery. An issue that we were asked to consider several times was in-module retrieval, this was not appropriate to us, but I now see that in-module retrieval can be very useful for other, more traditionally organised FDs and that it has been brought in to address student problems with completing modules.
Sunday, 7 February 2010
A new semester and a new degree
The new semester for the RED, BLUE and GREEN cohorts has just begun. The Whole Course emails went out last Friday and the semester starts officially on Monday (08.02.10). In addition the new degree, eComms PS FdA, began last Monday. Our new students here are in the ORANGE cohort.
We therefore have four cohorts running and the admin of the course is becoming more complex.
One of the ways to address this complexity is that Carol and I now meet each Wednesday to review student progress and issues. We consider weekly progress reports that each tutor sends in for that week. We have devised a fairly formal process with regard to students who are falling behind and/or absent. This process takes some of the pressure off the PPD tutors. Students who we are concerned about are initially contacted by me via email. If the issue continues I will try and ring a student to discuss the issues and offer solutions and advice, such as a plan for getting back on track with their studies. Students who are continually ‘quiet’ are sent letters, each one becoming more and more serious and called by us, ‘Green’, ‘Amber’ and ‘Red’. A ‘Red’ letter is an acknowledgement that the student has effectively withdrawn from the course. The student has to make this withdrawal formal, but in the absence of any communication, we can assume a withdrawal. This process is logged and recorded on a spreadsheet.
The process is actually less straightforward than this as more phone calls and other emails will be sent and, in addition, there will also be contact from the module tutor and the PPD tutor. However, it does enable us to see clearly how each student is progressing.
For this semester we would like to use ‘text tools’, a technology that enables us to email a student but also have the message delivered to their mobile phones. Unfortunately ‘text tools’ is not available in the College at the moment, but hope it will soon be up and running again.
Last semester we tried to hold fewer meetings and also hold virtual meetings. This was not entirely successful. Tutors felt isolated and found it difficult to engage with virtual meetings. We have therefore reinstated the F2F meetings for this semester. We will, however, not be able to meet weekly; this is because some tutors would have to meet four times if they taught in each cohort and would be meeting more if they were teaching other online courses. We have, therefore, decided to meet initially every three weeks or so. We will review this situation as the semester progresses.
The validation for the eComms PS FD still needs completing. Following my submission of the Summary Document, posted here on the 6th of January 2010, I have been asked to rewrite the Validation Document to incorporate the points in the Summary Document. I was asked to do this in early January but had to tell SHU that I would be too busy to do so until the new semester had begun. We have therefore agreed that I rewrite the validation for Tuesday the 9th of February. I hope to be able to spend all day tomorrow on this rewrite.
We therefore have four cohorts running and the admin of the course is becoming more complex.
One of the ways to address this complexity is that Carol and I now meet each Wednesday to review student progress and issues. We consider weekly progress reports that each tutor sends in for that week. We have devised a fairly formal process with regard to students who are falling behind and/or absent. This process takes some of the pressure off the PPD tutors. Students who we are concerned about are initially contacted by me via email. If the issue continues I will try and ring a student to discuss the issues and offer solutions and advice, such as a plan for getting back on track with their studies. Students who are continually ‘quiet’ are sent letters, each one becoming more and more serious and called by us, ‘Green’, ‘Amber’ and ‘Red’. A ‘Red’ letter is an acknowledgement that the student has effectively withdrawn from the course. The student has to make this withdrawal formal, but in the absence of any communication, we can assume a withdrawal. This process is logged and recorded on a spreadsheet.
The process is actually less straightforward than this as more phone calls and other emails will be sent and, in addition, there will also be contact from the module tutor and the PPD tutor. However, it does enable us to see clearly how each student is progressing.
For this semester we would like to use ‘text tools’, a technology that enables us to email a student but also have the message delivered to their mobile phones. Unfortunately ‘text tools’ is not available in the College at the moment, but hope it will soon be up and running again.
Last semester we tried to hold fewer meetings and also hold virtual meetings. This was not entirely successful. Tutors felt isolated and found it difficult to engage with virtual meetings. We have therefore reinstated the F2F meetings for this semester. We will, however, not be able to meet weekly; this is because some tutors would have to meet four times if they taught in each cohort and would be meeting more if they were teaching other online courses. We have, therefore, decided to meet initially every three weeks or so. We will review this situation as the semester progresses.
The validation for the eComms PS FD still needs completing. Following my submission of the Summary Document, posted here on the 6th of January 2010, I have been asked to rewrite the Validation Document to incorporate the points in the Summary Document. I was asked to do this in early January but had to tell SHU that I would be too busy to do so until the new semester had begun. We have therefore agreed that I rewrite the validation for Tuesday the 9th of February. I hope to be able to spend all day tomorrow on this rewrite.
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
The Formal Response to the Approval Conditions for the eComms PS FD and other responses
Following our submission of a response to the document ‘SHU Initial Comments on the eCommunications Public Sector FdA’ we were asked to provide two further responses, these were:
A Formal Response to the Approval Conditions
(Approval conditions are made when a Foundation Degree is approved and consist of things that SHU want to be changed, addressed or altered in order for the approval to be confirmed)
A response to the document ‘Additional Wording’
(This response was to be made to several queries made by SHU. Our response here might mean that the Approval Conditions would be reworded.)
To complete the Approval Conditions, several changes had to be made to the submission document. These changes were recorded on a separate document and I was asked to send the final version of the submission document to SHU by the 16th of December so that it could be retyped in time for the final deadline for the process of approval on the 6th of January 2009.
I completed all the requirements here but was then asked to address a point about in-module retrieval that I had not explicitly addressed in an earlier response. I was also asked to summarise my responses and include this summary in the submission document. I chose to add this summary as an appendix as we were now approaching the 6th of January deadline. I completed all of the new requirements and sent them off to SHU over the Xmas holidays.
Most of the points that we have been asked to address are about the nature of delivering a Foundation Degree through online learning. The summary is included here.
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED TO BE SUPPLIED BEFORE THE FORMAL RESPONSE TO THE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
Student workload
In distance learning it is necessary for the students to be required to engage with the content and be active learners. We address this in several ways.
• Assessed tasks
• eNotebook activities. These are not assessed but students are encouraged to do these as they are marked and guidance is given on how to improve for future assessed tasks
• Activities that cover skills, knowledge and understanding
required in a future assessed task
Assessed tasks
In order to encourage engagement many of the activities are assessed. Our experience of online learning is that if an activity is assessed, then a student is more likely to undertake that activity. We have followed SHU advice and built on our own experience of online learning here, both in the eComms FdA and in our other online courses. As a rule assessed tasks are not set until at least four weeks into a module. This is to ensure that students have the opportunity to become familiar with a module and its requirements. We have also followed comments from the eComms FdA Exam Boards where we were asked to be mindful that setting too many assessed tasks that each carried a small percentage of the marks for a module might result in a lot of students being able to achieve a high mark without having to undertake a sustained, complex assessed task.
We do, though, believe that it is necessary to have some assessed tasks that still carry a small percentage. An example of this would be a small percentage attached to a forum activity. The activity itself wouldn’t merit a high percentage but if we didn’t do so, then some students might not participate. This would result in less student interaction and collaboration.
Some assessed tasks are broken down into components and each component is assessed separately. Most modules follow this pattern.
A deadline of one clear working week is given for most assessed tasks. information about deadlines is given in the course materials and in weekly emails. Other assessed tasks might have different deadlines, for example three weeks or four weeks. Again clear information is given about this.
Tutors make every effort to make sure that students manage their studies and keep up with the assessed tasks. To be successful a student needs to be producing work regularly throughout each module and the tutors spend a lot of time encouraging good study habits in the students.
In designing the modules, care is taken to make sure that the workload is balanced and spread out throughout the semester and across the modules. Care is also taken to integrate modules.
eNotebook activities
These activities were specifically introduced to reduce the assessed tasks on the course. An eNotebook activity is not assessed but the students are encouraged to complete them as they are marked by the tutor and useful feedback is provided on how a student might be able to improve their performance in a future assessed task.
Activities that cover skills, knowledge and understanding
required in a future assessed task
Sometimes it is possible to present an unassessed activity that a student can see will need to be completed if that student is to be successful in a later assessed task. On this course, the reading activities fall into this category.
Reviewing content and assessed tasks
We are constantly reviewing how we deliver. Since first delivering the eComms FdA in Feb 2007 we have completely rewritten the assessed tasks for one module and made significant changes to the tasks and number of tasks in other modules. Throughout the reviewing process and the production of new content and assessed tasks we are mindful of the issue of student workload and the need to produce an assessment pattern that is balanced throughout the semester and across the modules in that semester.
The success rates in the eCommunications FdA are good. In the academic year 2008-2009 the First Cohort (Feb 08 Start) had a success rate of 83%; the Second Cohort (Sept 08) had a success rate of 72%. In this period the retention was respectively 64.25% and 82.75%. In the last Exam Board ( Sept 09 ), the averaged student mark for the First Cohort produced 10 distinctions, 1 good merit, 1 merit, and 3 passes. 3 students needed referrals. The averaged student mark for the Second Cohort produced 10 distinctions, 3 good merits, 1 merit and 3 passes. 3 students needed referrals.
This process is ongoing and we are continually trying to improve this aspect of our course.
Formative and summative feedback
Detailed feedback is given for each assessed task. The aim is to give the student a clear understanding of why a piece of work has achieved a particular mark and note the positive aspects of a student’s work. In addition tutors give advice about how a piece of work could have been improved so that a student knows how to produce better work for the next assessed task. eNotebook activities are set in most modules, these are not assessed but they are marked and feedback is provided in the same way as feedback is provided for assessed tasks. In the student handbooks for all the online courses at TSC it states that tutors will endeavour to mark assessed tasks and provide feedback within ten days of the deadline set for that assessed task. All online tutors strive to meet this. In this way students are provided with formative assessment throughout each module. On the completion of each module, the tutor provides each student with feedback on the whole module. Specific reference is made to individual assessed tasks but the feedback also includes a general comment on how the student has achieved and advice is given on how the student might improve in the coming modules.
The number of assessment tasks
We feel that it is necessary to have a number of assessed tasks in each module as in this way we can be sure that students are engaging with the course materials. Feedback is provided on the completion of each assessed task and also on completion of each eNotebook task. Students therefore receive formative feedback throughout each module. Generally a higher percentage is given to later collaborative and reflective tasks than to earlier ones.
Because of the number of assessed tasks in each module, we do not feel that in-module retrieval is appropriate for this FD. We have considered and discussed this but have concluded that it would not benefit the students. If a student failed to achieve 40% for an assessed task in a module and was then given the opportunity to redo the task, we have concluded that the student might not be able to keep pace with the rest of the work in that module. This might result in the student not being able to achieve good marks in later assessed tasks. Our view is that it is better to give a student clear feedback on their strengths and weaknesses for an assessed task that has failed to achieve 40% so that the student will be able to be more successful in the next assessed task. Additionally, as in-module retrieval is capped at 40%, there would not be a large benefit to the student in terms of the final mark for a module when redoing a typical assessed task that was weighted at, say 25%. If a student failed an assessed task with this weighting and achieved a mark of 25%, they would only be able to receive an extra 3.75% for the final mark for the module after in-module retrieval.
A Formal Response to the Approval Conditions
(Approval conditions are made when a Foundation Degree is approved and consist of things that SHU want to be changed, addressed or altered in order for the approval to be confirmed)
A response to the document ‘Additional Wording’
(This response was to be made to several queries made by SHU. Our response here might mean that the Approval Conditions would be reworded.)
To complete the Approval Conditions, several changes had to be made to the submission document. These changes were recorded on a separate document and I was asked to send the final version of the submission document to SHU by the 16th of December so that it could be retyped in time for the final deadline for the process of approval on the 6th of January 2009.
I completed all the requirements here but was then asked to address a point about in-module retrieval that I had not explicitly addressed in an earlier response. I was also asked to summarise my responses and include this summary in the submission document. I chose to add this summary as an appendix as we were now approaching the 6th of January deadline. I completed all of the new requirements and sent them off to SHU over the Xmas holidays.
Most of the points that we have been asked to address are about the nature of delivering a Foundation Degree through online learning. The summary is included here.
SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUESTED TO BE SUPPLIED BEFORE THE FORMAL RESPONSE TO THE APPROVAL CONDITIONS
Student workload
In distance learning it is necessary for the students to be required to engage with the content and be active learners. We address this in several ways.
• Assessed tasks
• eNotebook activities. These are not assessed but students are encouraged to do these as they are marked and guidance is given on how to improve for future assessed tasks
• Activities that cover skills, knowledge and understanding
required in a future assessed task
Assessed tasks
In order to encourage engagement many of the activities are assessed. Our experience of online learning is that if an activity is assessed, then a student is more likely to undertake that activity. We have followed SHU advice and built on our own experience of online learning here, both in the eComms FdA and in our other online courses. As a rule assessed tasks are not set until at least four weeks into a module. This is to ensure that students have the opportunity to become familiar with a module and its requirements. We have also followed comments from the eComms FdA Exam Boards where we were asked to be mindful that setting too many assessed tasks that each carried a small percentage of the marks for a module might result in a lot of students being able to achieve a high mark without having to undertake a sustained, complex assessed task.
We do, though, believe that it is necessary to have some assessed tasks that still carry a small percentage. An example of this would be a small percentage attached to a forum activity. The activity itself wouldn’t merit a high percentage but if we didn’t do so, then some students might not participate. This would result in less student interaction and collaboration.
Some assessed tasks are broken down into components and each component is assessed separately. Most modules follow this pattern.
A deadline of one clear working week is given for most assessed tasks. information about deadlines is given in the course materials and in weekly emails. Other assessed tasks might have different deadlines, for example three weeks or four weeks. Again clear information is given about this.
Tutors make every effort to make sure that students manage their studies and keep up with the assessed tasks. To be successful a student needs to be producing work regularly throughout each module and the tutors spend a lot of time encouraging good study habits in the students.
In designing the modules, care is taken to make sure that the workload is balanced and spread out throughout the semester and across the modules. Care is also taken to integrate modules.
eNotebook activities
These activities were specifically introduced to reduce the assessed tasks on the course. An eNotebook activity is not assessed but the students are encouraged to complete them as they are marked by the tutor and useful feedback is provided on how a student might be able to improve their performance in a future assessed task.
Activities that cover skills, knowledge and understanding
required in a future assessed task
Sometimes it is possible to present an unassessed activity that a student can see will need to be completed if that student is to be successful in a later assessed task. On this course, the reading activities fall into this category.
Reviewing content and assessed tasks
We are constantly reviewing how we deliver. Since first delivering the eComms FdA in Feb 2007 we have completely rewritten the assessed tasks for one module and made significant changes to the tasks and number of tasks in other modules. Throughout the reviewing process and the production of new content and assessed tasks we are mindful of the issue of student workload and the need to produce an assessment pattern that is balanced throughout the semester and across the modules in that semester.
The success rates in the eCommunications FdA are good. In the academic year 2008-2009 the First Cohort (Feb 08 Start) had a success rate of 83%; the Second Cohort (Sept 08) had a success rate of 72%. In this period the retention was respectively 64.25% and 82.75%. In the last Exam Board ( Sept 09 ), the averaged student mark for the First Cohort produced 10 distinctions, 1 good merit, 1 merit, and 3 passes. 3 students needed referrals. The averaged student mark for the Second Cohort produced 10 distinctions, 3 good merits, 1 merit and 3 passes. 3 students needed referrals.
This process is ongoing and we are continually trying to improve this aspect of our course.
Formative and summative feedback
Detailed feedback is given for each assessed task. The aim is to give the student a clear understanding of why a piece of work has achieved a particular mark and note the positive aspects of a student’s work. In addition tutors give advice about how a piece of work could have been improved so that a student knows how to produce better work for the next assessed task. eNotebook activities are set in most modules, these are not assessed but they are marked and feedback is provided in the same way as feedback is provided for assessed tasks. In the student handbooks for all the online courses at TSC it states that tutors will endeavour to mark assessed tasks and provide feedback within ten days of the deadline set for that assessed task. All online tutors strive to meet this. In this way students are provided with formative assessment throughout each module. On the completion of each module, the tutor provides each student with feedback on the whole module. Specific reference is made to individual assessed tasks but the feedback also includes a general comment on how the student has achieved and advice is given on how the student might improve in the coming modules.
The number of assessment tasks
We feel that it is necessary to have a number of assessed tasks in each module as in this way we can be sure that students are engaging with the course materials. Feedback is provided on the completion of each assessed task and also on completion of each eNotebook task. Students therefore receive formative feedback throughout each module. Generally a higher percentage is given to later collaborative and reflective tasks than to earlier ones.
Because of the number of assessed tasks in each module, we do not feel that in-module retrieval is appropriate for this FD. We have considered and discussed this but have concluded that it would not benefit the students. If a student failed to achieve 40% for an assessed task in a module and was then given the opportunity to redo the task, we have concluded that the student might not be able to keep pace with the rest of the work in that module. This might result in the student not being able to achieve good marks in later assessed tasks. Our view is that it is better to give a student clear feedback on their strengths and weaknesses for an assessed task that has failed to achieve 40% so that the student will be able to be more successful in the next assessed task. Additionally, as in-module retrieval is capped at 40%, there would not be a large benefit to the student in terms of the final mark for a module when redoing a typical assessed task that was weighted at, say 25%. If a student failed an assessed task with this weighting and achieved a mark of 25%, they would only be able to receive an extra 3.75% for the final mark for the module after in-module retrieval.
Sunday, 22 November 2009
The final stages of the validation of the eCommunications Public Sector FdA
The completion of the first module for this new degree
Julie and I completed the content for Approaches to Communications on the 16th of November. Julie did most of the work here. I checked it and made a few suggestions. We have also altered some of the other content in the other modules for semester one. This means that the SHU staff who are validating our new degree can now go online and review the content of one whole module. They can also see the Assessment Criteria Grid in the resources section and the outlines of the other modules which can be found in the Homepage of Semester 1. Arrangements were put in place for all the SHU staff to be able to access this online content from the 18th of November.
SHU Initial Comments on the eCommunications Public Sector FdA
On the 18th of November I was sent the initial comments from SHU on our proposals for this new degree. I was asked to make a written response to this document which I have now competed and returned.
I decided to address each of the initial comments by firstly looking though the submission document to see how far or fully the issue was addressed there. Often I was able to just copy and paste some of the relevant sections into my reply and merely add a few points of clarification.
Other comments, however, took longer to address and I had to compose a response. A few comments dealt with very minor issues such as the odd typo, and example of a piece of text that hadn’t been typed into the final SHU document and requests for clarification. Overall I felt that the comments revealed a favourable reading of our submission and there were no major issues and nothing that I felt I couldn’t address.
The whole process took the best part of an afternoon. From email exchanges this week it now seems that most of the validation will take place virtually and although it will involve a final validation meeting, this meeting will only involve SHU staff, not TSC staff and we will not be required to present our online content or to answer further questions.
Julie and I completed the content for Approaches to Communications on the 16th of November. Julie did most of the work here. I checked it and made a few suggestions. We have also altered some of the other content in the other modules for semester one. This means that the SHU staff who are validating our new degree can now go online and review the content of one whole module. They can also see the Assessment Criteria Grid in the resources section and the outlines of the other modules which can be found in the Homepage of Semester 1. Arrangements were put in place for all the SHU staff to be able to access this online content from the 18th of November.
SHU Initial Comments on the eCommunications Public Sector FdA
On the 18th of November I was sent the initial comments from SHU on our proposals for this new degree. I was asked to make a written response to this document which I have now competed and returned.
I decided to address each of the initial comments by firstly looking though the submission document to see how far or fully the issue was addressed there. Often I was able to just copy and paste some of the relevant sections into my reply and merely add a few points of clarification.
Other comments, however, took longer to address and I had to compose a response. A few comments dealt with very minor issues such as the odd typo, and example of a piece of text that hadn’t been typed into the final SHU document and requests for clarification. Overall I felt that the comments revealed a favourable reading of our submission and there were no major issues and nothing that I felt I couldn’t address.
The whole process took the best part of an afternoon. From email exchanges this week it now seems that most of the validation will take place virtually and although it will involve a final validation meeting, this meeting will only involve SHU staff, not TSC staff and we will not be required to present our online content or to answer further questions.
Thursday, 15 October 2009
Reflections on writing the final draft of the eCommunications PS FdA submission document
I’ve just finished completing the last, and I hope final , draft of the submission document for our new degree eCommunications PS FdA. The Validation for this is slightly different from last time. The current process involves:
1.The first draft submission document being sent to a group of readers at Sheffield Hallam University (SHU).
2.These readers sending their comments back to us and we then have about a week to ten days to produce the final draft. We have to either address each comment in the submission document or be able to defend our position if called to do so later on in the validation itself.
3. The final draft is retyped at SHU and distributed to the validation panel who will then read it and prepare comments for the validation.
4. Following, a hopefully successful, validation, we will be probably required to alter some things and then to produce a final validation document which is the last draft of the submission document that incorporates the recommendations of the validation.
We have just finished point 2.
Prior to validation we may be involved in email or other exchanges with the validation panel.
We are also required to have one module fully ready before validation. This in itself isn’t a big job but it will require the setting up of a mirror site of the instance of sheffcol that we are using for our online delivery.
Vaidation has been set for a date between 17.11.09 – 23.11.09 but we haven’t been given the final details yet.
The writing of the last draft has taken me about 15 hours. An interesting aspect of this piece of work was that I realised that I needed to produce 2 documents. One was the draft itself, the second was a record of how I had dealt with the comments from the SHU readers. I needed this second document to be able to explain to Kevin at SHU how I had produced my draft; I also realised that I’d need such a document as a record for later drafting and as a record that I might need to consult in the validation. Initially I thought that the production of this second document would be very time consuming and would deflect me from my main aim. However, when I began to construct this document, I realised that it would be an invaluable tool that would enable me to produce my draft more efficiently. I accordingly produced a table and in one column pasted in the comments I needed to address and in the second column noted the changes, additions etc made to the new draft. I also noted down issues and questions for Kevin.
Shortly after I began to construct this document I realised that what I was also doing was to separate out the more routine, mechanical and less strenuous aspects of my task from the more time consuming and demanding ones. It’s interesting: I often find myself wishing that I was doing something more original and creative and yet I actually organise my work so I can do as much of it as possible in a workaday way. On reflection, this is a good approach, but I was unaware that I was doing this.
I’ve now sent the final version and the second document to Kevin. He has Swine Flu and may not be able to respond before the final deadline for this at 12.00 midday next Tuesday. I don’t think this will be a problem as SHU have said that if we have to, we can submit the draft as it is and any final minor points that haven’t been addressed, can be brought up at the validation.
1.The first draft submission document being sent to a group of readers at Sheffield Hallam University (SHU).
2.These readers sending their comments back to us and we then have about a week to ten days to produce the final draft. We have to either address each comment in the submission document or be able to defend our position if called to do so later on in the validation itself.
3. The final draft is retyped at SHU and distributed to the validation panel who will then read it and prepare comments for the validation.
4. Following, a hopefully successful, validation, we will be probably required to alter some things and then to produce a final validation document which is the last draft of the submission document that incorporates the recommendations of the validation.
We have just finished point 2.
Prior to validation we may be involved in email or other exchanges with the validation panel.
We are also required to have one module fully ready before validation. This in itself isn’t a big job but it will require the setting up of a mirror site of the instance of sheffcol that we are using for our online delivery.
Vaidation has been set for a date between 17.11.09 – 23.11.09 but we haven’t been given the final details yet.
The writing of the last draft has taken me about 15 hours. An interesting aspect of this piece of work was that I realised that I needed to produce 2 documents. One was the draft itself, the second was a record of how I had dealt with the comments from the SHU readers. I needed this second document to be able to explain to Kevin at SHU how I had produced my draft; I also realised that I’d need such a document as a record for later drafting and as a record that I might need to consult in the validation. Initially I thought that the production of this second document would be very time consuming and would deflect me from my main aim. However, when I began to construct this document, I realised that it would be an invaluable tool that would enable me to produce my draft more efficiently. I accordingly produced a table and in one column pasted in the comments I needed to address and in the second column noted the changes, additions etc made to the new draft. I also noted down issues and questions for Kevin.
Shortly after I began to construct this document I realised that what I was also doing was to separate out the more routine, mechanical and less strenuous aspects of my task from the more time consuming and demanding ones. It’s interesting: I often find myself wishing that I was doing something more original and creative and yet I actually organise my work so I can do as much of it as possible in a workaday way. On reflection, this is a good approach, but I was unaware that I was doing this.
I’ve now sent the final version and the second document to Kevin. He has Swine Flu and may not be able to respond before the final deadline for this at 12.00 midday next Tuesday. I don’t think this will be a problem as SHU have said that if we have to, we can submit the draft as it is and any final minor points that haven’t been addressed, can be brought up at the validation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
