Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
Date: 3 Oct 2011
MMU TRAFFIC Project Plan
Project Information
Project Identifier To be completed by JISC
Project Title TRansforming Assessment + Feedback For Institutional Change
(TRAFFIC)
Project Hashtag #mmutraffic
Start Date 1 Sept 2011 End Date 31 Aug 2014
Lead Institution Manchester Metropolitan University (MMU)
Project Director Prof Mark Stubbs
Project Manager Bruce Levitan
Contact email m.stubbs@mmu.ac.uk and b.levitan@mmu.ac.uk
Partner Institutions ULCC, UNIT4
Project Webpage URL http://lrt.mmu.ac.uk/traffic
Programme Name Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Programme Manager
Document Information
Author(s) Mark Stubbs & Bruce Levitan
Project Role(s) Project Director & Project Manager
Date 03/10/2011 Filename TRAFFIC project plan Final.doc
URL http://lrt.mmu.ac.uk/traffic/plan
Access This report is for general dissemination
Document History
Version Date Comments
0.1 22/09/2011 Initial draft
0.2 22/09/2011 Comments and feedback from R Forsyth incorporated
0.3 30/09/2011 Updated following project launch meeting
0.4 02/10/2011 Amendments and additions by M Stubbs & B Levitan
1.0 03/10/2011 Final version approved by M Stubbs
Page 1 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
Table of Contents
1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Project Summary ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 3
1.3 Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes ........................................................................................ 4
1.4 Overall Approach .................................................................................................................... 5
1.4.1 Strategy ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.4.2 Structure of the work ........................................................................................................... 6
1.4.3 Issues .................................................................................................................................. 6
1.4.4 Scope .................................................................................................................................. 7
1.4.5 Critical success factors ....................................................................................................... 7
1.5 Anticipated Impact ................................................................................................................... 7
1.6 Stakeholder Analysis ............................................................................................................... 8
1.7 Related Projects ...................................................................................................................... 8
1.8 Constraints .............................................................................................................................. 9
1.9 Assumptions ............................................................................................................................ 9
1.10 Risk Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 9
1.11 Technical Development ......................................................................................................... 10
1.12 Standards .............................................................................................................................. 10
1.13 Intellectual Property Rights ................................................................................................... 11
2 Project Resources .......................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Project Partners..................................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Project Management ............................................................................................................. 11
2.3 Project Roles ......................................................................................................................... 12
2.4 Programme Support .............................................................................................................. 12
3 Detailed Project Planning .............................................................................................................. 12
3.1 Evaluation Plan ..................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Quality Assurance ................................................................................................................. 14
3.3 Dissemination Plan ............................................................................................................... 15
3.4 Exit and Embedding Plans .................................................................................................... 16
3.5 Sustainability Plans ............................................................................................................... 17
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................... 18
Appendix A. Project Budget............................................................................................................... 18
Appendix B. Workpackages .............................................................................................................. 18
Page 2 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
1 Project Overview
1.1 Project Summary
Inspired by its engagement with the JISC‟s Curriculum Design and Delivery Programme,
MMU has embarked on an institution-wide initiative to enhance the quality of assessment for
learning (EQAL). The TRAFFIC project will support EQAL in TRansforming Assessment and
Feedback For Institutional Change and share lessons learned from doing so across the
sector. It will do this by:
reviewing our current assessment and feedback processes in the light of available
technologies and appropriate pedagogy
securing approval from relevant committees for a set of updated assessment
principles and appropriate threshold expectations of the assessment and feedback
process for learners
articulating requirements for and prioritising development of technologies that will
make the biggest improvement to assessment and feedback processes
implementing and evaluating technologies to support improved assessment and
feedback processes
developing and using innovative approaches and materials to facilitate assessment
redesign in university-wide Unit approval and review
developing review mechanisms within the institution‟s new continuous improvement
framework to determine the range and impact of assessment and feedback methods
blogging project progress and encouraging feedback on our dynamic case study via
blog comments and twitter
We expect this activity to:
improve assessment and feedback practice across the institution
provide business intelligence about assessment and feedback for the institution‟s
new continuous improvement framework
use the most appropriate technologies to support consistent management of
assessment and feedback
support MMU‟s institution-wide Enhancing the Quality of Assessment for Learning
initiative to enhance student success and satisfaction
provide rich case study material from which other institutions contemplating
assessment and feedback redesign can learn
[274 words]
1.2 Objectives
Our benefits analysis of the TRAFFIC project has identified a range of benefits:
improve assessment (B1) and feedback (B2) practice across the institution
improve business intelligence (B3) about assessment and feedback for the
institution’s new continuous improvement framework so that interventions are
constantly evaluated
We expect these to be enabled by:
Page 3 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
appropriate technologies that support consistent management of assessment (E1)
and feedback (E2) – emphasis here will be on usable, cost effective and scalable
solutions integrated seamlessly with our evolving Core+ Moodle VLE1
We see these benefits furthering overall MMU and 5/11 programme objectives to:
transform assessment and feedback practice (O1)
support MMU’s institution-wide EQAL programme (O2) to enhance student
success and satisfaction
provide rich case study material (O3) from which other institutions contemplating
systematic assessment and feedback redesign can learn, that incorporates
stakeholder perspectives on the efficiency and effectiveness of institution-wide
solutions
TRAFFIC benefits map
B1: Improve
assessment
E1: Assessment practice
management
system
O1: To O3: To
B2: Improve
transform support
feedback
assessment EQAL
practice
& feedback programme
E2: Feedback
management
system
B3: Improve
business
O2: To
intelligence
provide case
study
material
Key
Enabler Benefit Objective
1.3 Anticipated Outputs and Outcomes
Activity Deliverable
Baseline
[M4] Baseline report of stakeholder views on current practice
Principle Comparison of MMU principles to sector best practice
[M9] approved updated assess/feedback principles + thresholds
Requirements
Business process models on assessment management
[M5] Requirements specification for VLE enhancements
[M9] Requirements specification for further VLE enhancements
Technologies Institution-wide coursework receipting integrated with VLE
1
http://lrt.mmu.ac.uk/w2c/2011/06/21/our-moodle-mega-mashup-part-1/
Page 4 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
Activity Deliverable
[M14] Assessment handling integration with VLE/SRS
Support Consolidation of advice on assessment best practice
[M1] Engagement with course teams re-writing L5 curriculum
[M10] Engagement with course teams re-writing L6 curriculum
[M16] Engagement with post-grad course teams
Review Availability of assessment + feedback data reviewed
[M18] Assessment/feedback data improved in Unit ‘health reports’
Evaluation External evaluator appointed
[M11] Year 1 external evaluation report
[M17] Year 2 external evaluation report
Project Mgt
[M3] JISC-approved TRAFFIC project plan
[M6] 6 month progress report submitted to JISC
[M11] 12 month progress report submitted to JISC
[M13] 18 month progress report submitted to JISC
[M17] Completion reports published including overall evaluation
1.4 Overall Approach
1.4.1 Strategy
Assessment practice remains stubbornly resistant to change nationally2. We have identified
two principal reasons for this in our institution.
1. A lack of confidence in moving away from traditional approaches and we continue to
address this via staff development (eg by providing better information about different
types of assignments3).
2. A need to implement a more systematic review and overview of assessment on a
programme by programme basis.
Modularisation has made it difficult to keep track of assessment requirements in many
institutions (eg Crook and Park (2004)4). This becomes easier to discuss with teams when
we provide tools for them to see an overview of their assignment tasks linked to their
programme learning outcomes. Whilst we can do this manually at the time of periodic
review, it can be a clumsy process and it does not facilitate comparison across programmes.
The EQAL process placed some constraints on modular structure, which has made it easier
to take stock of institutional processes. By restricting the number of summative assessments
permitted per module, in one year we have moved from having 3,837 assignments at level 4
to having 1,233. This will clearly have an effect on the administration of assignments and will
allow staff to spend more time on formative assessment and feedback. We will rewrite our
assessment principles to work towards a more sustainable assessment model5 which aligns
assessment more closely with our institutional Employability and Sustainability Outcomes
and encourages the use of technology to support the organisation and administration of
2
As evidenced by the National Student Survey since 2005
3
See http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/assessment/design/types.php
4
Crook, A. C. and J. R. Park (2004) "Measuring assessment: a methodology for investigating
undergraduate assessment." Bioscience Education e-journal 4(6)
5
Carless, D, Salter, D et al. (2011). "Developing sustainable feedback practices." Studies in Higher
Education 36(4): 395 - 407.
Page 5 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
assessment. The new database also allows us to review patterns in assessment: for
instance, if we compare 2010 with 2011, the percentage of exams and tests at level 4 has
remained at 23% of the total number of assignments at level 4, whilst 15% of assignments
are identified as essays and the number of portfolio assessments has increased from 3% to
19%. With this data, we can open discussions with programme teams about the balance of
assessments but also focus the effort of the TRAFFIC project on the more frequently used
types of assignment task: what are the most effective ways of giving feedback on essays, for
instance? What kind of feedback can be provided on tests and exams? How long should
feedback on presentations take to deliver?
1.4.2 Structure of the work
We plan to deliver the benefits identified in section 1.2 through the following activities:
Baseline Reviewing current assessment and feedback processes in the light of available
technologies and summarizing lessons learned from previous projects
Principles Securing approval from relevant committees for a set of updated assessment
principles and reasonable threshold expectations of the assessment and feedback
process for learners
Requirements Articulating requirements for and prioritising development of technologies that will
make the biggest improvement to assessment and feedback technologies
Technologies Implementing technologies to support improved assessment and feedback processes
Support Developing and using materials to support assessment redesign in university-wide
Unit approval and review
Review Developing review mechanisms for the institution’s new continuous improvement
framework to determine the range and impact of assessment and feedback methods
Evaluation External evaluator appointed to provide independent view of project progress and
institution-wide embedding
Project Extending EQAL programme delivery structures to include TRAFFIC deliverables and
Management evaluation thereof; engaging with 05/11 programme support; blogging project progress
and encouraging feedback on our dynamic case study via blog comments and twitter
1.4.3 Issues
Review of current processes and practice and Refining and more fully
specifying the desired changes, and planning innovations in assessment and
feedback processes in order to realise these. The potential issue for MMU will be
the degree of variation in practice that we uncover – as an information gathering
exercise this will provide a valuable insight, but the greater the variability we discover
the harder it will be to improve and standardise.
Evaluation of the new processes and Embedding the innovations and planning
for sustainability. As noted above, we may encounter problems due to variability in
current practice and barriers to change. However we are confident that we will be
able to innovate in at least some faculties and across many programmes. We will be
able to share both sets of experiences with the wider community. The lessons from
dealing with resistance to change will provide valuable additional information
alongside the evaluation of change pilots.
Resources. The project team will carry out the majority of the work, and it is possible
that members of the team may vary if other priorities emerge – however we will
Page 6 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
endeavour to ensure that this does not adversely affect the project by providing
suitable alternatives.
1.4.4 Scope
Assessment and feedback will be evaluated across the undergraduate curriculum – post
graduate, CPD and other types of study are not included.
Technologies include student records, assessments, coursework receipting and VLE – we
will look at extracting and aggregating data and the creation /provision of assessment and
feedback feeds into Unit “health” monitoring and reporting. This will enable us to provide
information for the project on:
what works in terms of providing good indicators;
issues in gathering the data;
dealing with data quality;
system/data integration issues.
Stakeholder interviews and process mapping will provide rich information about issues and
requirements pertaining to the provision, collection, analysis and reporting of assessment
and feedback data, and especially the scope for standardising processes.
1.4.5 Critical success factors
The benefits map in section 1.2 illustrates the three key benefits we have identified – these
are the critical success factors, and measures for them have been defined as follows:
CSF Benefit Measure
Assessment practice B1: Improve 1. New processes mapped and documented
improvement and assessment 2. Assessment timescales reduced
standardisation practice 3. Assessment communication automated and
standardised (via VLE)
Feedback practice B2: Improve feedback 1. New processes mapped and documented
improvement and practice 2. Feedback timescales reduced
standardisation 3. Feedback communication standardised (via
VLE)
Business intelligence B3: Improve business 1. BI metrics on assessment available in real
availability intelligence time
2. BI metrics on feedback available in real time
1.5 Anticipated Impact
Impact Area Anticipated Impact Description
Internal
Maintain teaching and learning Improve assessment and feedback practice across the institution
excellence Provide business intelligence about assessment and feedback for
the institution’s new continuous improvement framework
Heighten awareness about patterns of student engagement and
success and facilitate discovery of learning resources that others
have found to be useful
Be more effective/save money Support MMU’s institution-wide EQAL programme to enhance
student success and satisfaction
External
Be ready for technology needs in MMU’s EQAL Programme offers an institutional-level test bed for
the future many of the ideas championed by the JISC, including specifically
transforming assessment and feedback processes.
Page 7 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
Impact Area Anticipated Impact Description
Have a positive impact on wider Improve, by providing practice-informed feedback, key sources of
society information available to others in the sector contemplating similar
endeavours.
Provide rich case study material from which other institutions
contemplating assessment and feedback redesign can learn
1.6 Stakeholder Analysis
Stakeholder Interest / stake Impact Benefit Importance
(H/M/L)
Internal
Students High interest. Need easy, fast, flexible Student experience B1, B2 H
access to assessment and feedback reflected in NSS and
information. internal surveys
Teaching staff High interest. Require simple, quick, Could be blockers if B1, B2 H
easy mechanisms for recording systems perceived to be
assessment and feedback “unfriendly”
Programme High interest. Require robust, real- Risk that B3 M
leaders time course health indicators underperforming courses
not actioned
Deans, Heads High interest. Require robust, real- Strategic planning B3 M
of Department time course health indicators
Learning High interest. Provide guidance and Guidance and support B1, B2, M
technologists / support on good practice in not optimised B3
CeLT assessment and feedback, and use of
technology to support it
EQAL Board High interest. The project is part of the Agree scope and B1, B2, H
EQAL programme and deliverables objectives B3
Administrators Medium interest. May need to update / Could be blockers if B1, B2 M
input assessment and feedback data systems perceived to be
in some areas “unfriendly”
Technical staff Medium interest. Carry out system Delay / system not fully B1, B2, H
development and configuration work. featured enough B3
Provide system support
External
JISC High interest. Providing funding for the Funding could be B1, B2, H
project withdrawn if project not B3
delivering
Partner Medium interest. Their products will Supplier reputation B1, B2, L
suppliers provide some of the functions we B3
require.
Other project High interest. They will be doing their Useful inter-project B1, B2, L
owners own projects and will have an interest communication B3
in ours (and us in theirs)
1.7 Related Projects
The EQAL Programme, noted in section 1.4.1, is the parent entity for TRAFFIC. EQAL’s
scop already includes most of what TRAFFIC sets out to achieve, and the EQAL Board will
be asked to approve the inclusion of the JISC-related outcomes.
EQAL has several thematic strands, each of which contains one or more projects. TRAFFIC
will be part of Strand 3a, and will be influenced by and have an influence on several
companion projects within EQAL, as shown below.
Page 8 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
EQAL project Link to TRAFFIC
VLE The new VLE, based on Moodle, will be the key vehicle for presenting
assessment and feedback information to students.
Assessments The assessment module of Agresso QLS (MMU’s SRS) will be the mechanism,
for capturing assessment results.
1.8 Constraints
All members of the project team have other commitments so will be able to provide between
20% and 40% of their time to this project. We have planned the project on this basis, so it
should not present a problem in terms of meeting the project’s deliverables.
1.9 Assumptions
As noted in section 1.8, staff time is limited. We have made the assumption that staff will be
able to fit their commitments to other work around the requirements of this project, and that
their managers will support this accommodation. (In principle this has been agreed with staff
and managers).
We also assume that external partners will be able to make resources available when
required. As they have already provided letters of support, we do not anticipate that there will
be any problems.
1.10 Risk Analysis
In the risk analysis below, most of the items are “negative” risks, i.e. things that might go
wrong. However we have also included some potential “positive” risks, i.e. opportunities that
might add value if we can make them happen.
Risk Prob Severity Score Action to Prevent/Manage Negative
(1-5) (1-5) (P x S) Risk or promote Opportunity
Staffing
Loss of key staff 3 4 12 Document emerging know-how
regularly; ensure buy-in from line
managers for speedy replacement;
involve a wide range of key staff
across the institution
Insufficient staff resource delays 4 5 20 EQAL Board to ensure that sufficient
system development budget available to secure required
resource
Unbudgeted input required for 2 4 8 Ensure line manager buy-in
success
HE cuts provoke industrial action 2 3 6 Strong line management
from Unions
Staff lack required skills 2 5 10 Pick right team; maximise synergy with
day-jobs; training; link to PDRs; link to
institutional objectives
Staff fail to engage with systems 2 5 10 Briefings to staff; escalation to EQAL
(data entry) Board / Faculty Executive Groups
Staff take advantage of better Opportunity Regular stock-taking; support and
information to innovate assessment encouragement for idea generation;
and feedback regimes dissemination of good ideas /
innovations
Organisational
Page 9 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
Risk Prob Severity Score Action to Prevent/Manage Negative
(1-5) (1-5) (P x S) Risk or promote Opportunity
Fail to get required access to 3 4 12 Stakeholder buy-in and escalate to
corporate systems EQAL Board if necessary
Fail to acquire required information 2 3 6 Engage stakeholders in process
from business processes modelling; strong comms strategy
Conflicting priorities mean that 2 4 8 EQAL Board to confirm and enforce
progress is delayed priorities
Strategic curriculum planning Opportunity Engage stakeholders in outcomes
enhanced as a result of better course reviews; strong comms strategy
health data
Technical
Solutions fail to scale 2 5 10 Volume estimates to feed system
sizing
Data quality is poor 3 4 12 Briefings to staff; data quality
monitoring
Moodle2 is scheduled to be rolled out 3 3 12 Carefully evaluate impact on this
during the course of the project project before making a decision to
causing delay roll-out Moodle 2
External suppliers
Fail to get required technical 1 3 3 Letters of support; regular
assistance from partners Unit4 communication; engagement as
(Agresso) or ULCC (VLE hosting) strategic partners in EQAL
Suppliers develop new features / Opportunity Establish partnership working models;
functions share experiences
Legal & Financial
Inadequate budget for required work 2 5 10 Finance Dept sign-off + EQAL review
1.11 Technical Development
In-house technical development follows an Agile framework with successive stages of
requirements identification – validation – development – testing – implementation being
broken down into small cycles and each cycle building on the outputs/outcomes from the
previous cycle. Our partners, ULCC and UNIT4, will have their own internal development
frameworks which we will seek to influence only in so far as to agree with them the desired
outputs and timescales.
Where appropriate, requirements will be documented using UML or other class description
modelling, supported by higher level BPMN process maps.
Change control will be carried out using formal change request and acceptance
documentation with our partners, and internally using project management documentation.
Testing will be carried out, with evaluation as noted in section3.1.
1.12 Standards
Name of standard or Notes
specification
Native Moodle Block vs Basic In partnership with ULCC we will review existing work on Moodle
LTI assessments integration to decide which approach best suits the
needs of the project
RSS / iCal We plan to make personalized deadline feeds available on students’
mobiles (we hope to do this immediately through CampusM’s support
for personalized RSS, but iCal may prove a better solution in the
Page 10 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
medium term)
IMS-ES vs Dr Chuck’s We will be reviewing standards for synchronising gradebook data
emerging results transfer work between VLE and SRS
1.13 Intellectual Property Rights
We will be working with our project partners to ensure that any software developed with
project funding will be released to the community under a suitable open source license.
Currently we envisage this will most likely take the form of extensions to Moodle but more
detailed analysis (Milestone 5) will be required to give details of the actual license that will be
used. Diagrams and similar blog outputs will be released under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-sa/2.0/uk/).
2 Project Resources
2.1 Project Partners
Our key partners are UNIT4, whose Agresso QLS applications forms our student records
system, and University of London Computing Centre, who host our Moodle VLE system. We
will also be working with paid student ambassadors.
2.2 Project Management
MMU has its own project management framework based on PRINCE2 and JISC’s project
management toolkit. This includes the establishment of a project board and the normal
control and reporting arrangements associated with that (e.g. highlight reports, board based
change control). The project board organisation is illustrated below – note that this projects
fits into our pre-existing EQAL Programme and this relationship is also shown.
EQAL Programme Board
Sponsor: Prof Kevin
Bonnett
TRAFFIC Project Board
Prof Mark Stubbs Prof Kevin Bonnett
(Project Director) (Sponsor)
Bruce Levitan
(Project manager)
Project team
Page 11 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
2.3 Project Roles
Team Member Project Role Contact Details Commitment
Name (days per week)
Mark Stubbs Principal Investigator and Project m.stubbs@mmu.ac.uk 1
Director
Bruce Levitan Project Manager and Business b.levitan@mmu.ac.uk 1
Analyst
Rachel Forsyth Assessment review & support r.forsyth@mmu.ac.uk 2
Neil Ringan e-Assessment review & support n.ringan@mmu.ac.uk 1
Rod Cullen e-Assessment review & support r.cullen@mmu.ac.uk 1
Robin Johnson e-Champion r.johnson@mmu.ac.uk 1
Kevin Bonnett Project Sponsor & EQAL k.bonnett@mmu.ac.uk 10 days total for
Champion project
2.4 Programme Support
We would like the programme to
facilitate sessions for the comparison of principles and practices amongst the
organisations taking part in the programme
provide advice if required on the most appropriate license for sharing IPR generated
by the project
3 Detailed Project Planning
3.1 Evaluation Plan
Critical success factors, listed in section 1.4.5 include benefits measures, and these will be
used to evaluate overall project success. Intermediate evaluation will concentrate on two
sets of measures: those that assess progress on providing project outputs and benefits, and
those that assess whether the project is on track and risks are being managed effectively.
The latter will be evaluated using our project governance approach summarised in section
2.2.
The former will be assessed at key milestones as summarised below (note that exact dates
may vary as ongoing project planning establishes a more detailed schedule).
Timing Project outputs: factor Questions to Method(s) Measure of success
to evaluate address
Sep 2011 Engagement with course Are stakeholders Workshop and 1-2-1 L5 team response
teams re-writing L5 on board? meetings L5 curriculum completed
curriculum
Oct 2011 EQAL approval to Has TRAFFIC plan Project Board review Plan submitted and
include TRAFFIC in been integrated approved
strand deliverables with EQAL?
Dec 2011 Stakeholder interviews, Are stakeholders Workshop and 1-2-1 Documentation of
workshops & mgmt info on board? meetings stakeholder input
reports
Page 12 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
Timing Project outputs: factor Questions to Method(s) Measure of success
to evaluate address
Dec 2011 Draft of updated Has milestone Project Board review Report submitted and
assess/feedback been met on approved
principles + thresholds schedule?
Dec 2011 Stakeholder interviews Are stakeholders Workshop and 1-2-1 Documentation of
on assessment support on board? meetings stakeholder input
requirements
Dec 2011 Consolidation of advice Has milestone Project Board review Report submitted and
on assessment best been met on approved
practice schedule?
Dec 2011 JISC-approved TRAFFIC Has milestone JISC review Report submitted and
project plan been met on approved
schedule?
Mar 2012 Baseline report of Has milestone Project Board review Report submitted and
stakeholder views on been met on approved
current practice schedule?
Mar 2012 Business process Has milestone Project Board review Process models submitted
models on assessment been met on and approved
management schedule?
Mar 2012 Requirements Has milestone Stakeholder Specification submitted
specification for VLE been met on workshop and approved by users &
enhancements schedule? Project Board review Board
Mar 2012 Availability of Has milestone Stakeholder Data is available
assessment + feedback been met on workshop Data meets required
data reviewed schedule? Project team review quality criteria
Mar 2012 External evaluator Has appointment Project Director External evaluator
appointed been made? review appointed
Mar 2012 6 month progress report Has milestone Project Board review Report submitted to JISC
submitted to JISC been met on
schedule?
Jun 2012 Assessment/feedback Are criteria Stakeholder Data is available
data piloted in Unit acceptable? workshop Data meets required
‘health’ reports Project team review quality criteria
Jun 2012 New assessment Has milestone Project team review Integration successful
handling integration with been met on UATs passed
VLE/SRS schedule?
Jun 2012 Engagement with course Are stakeholders Workshop and 1-2-1 L6 team response
teams re-writing L6 on board? meetings L6 curriculum completed
curriculum
Jun 2013 Assessment/feedback Has milestone Stakeholder Data is available
data embedded in Unit been met on workshop Reports meet required
health reports schedule? Project team review quality criteria
Sep 2012 Review of usage of VLE Has appointment Project Director Review report completed
assessment tools been made? review
Sep 2012 Approved updated Has milestone Project Board review Principles & thresholds
assess/feedback been met on EQAL Board review approved
principles + thresholds schedule?
Sep 2012 Year 1 external Has milestone External evaluator Report submitted &
evaluation report been met on approved
schedule?
Sep 2012 12 month progress Has milestone Project Board review Report submitted to JISC
report submitted to JISC been met on
schedule?
Page 13 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
Timing Project outputs: factor Questions to Method(s) Measure of success
to evaluate address
Mar 2013 Requirements Has milestone Stakeholder Specification submitted
specification for further been met on workshop and approved by users &
VLE enhancements schedule? Project Board review Board
Mar 2013 18 month progress Has milestone Project Board review Report submitted to JISC
report submitted to JISC been met on
schedule?
Jun 2013 Further assessment Has milestone Project team review Integration successful
handling integration with been met on UATs passed
VLE/SRS schedule?
Jun 2013 Engagement with post- Are stakeholders Workshop and 1-2-1 PG team response
grad course teams on board? meetings
Sep 2013 Institution-wide Has milestone Project team review Integration successful
coursework receipting been met on UATs passed
integrated with VLE schedule?
Sep 2013 Institution-wide Has milestone Project team review Integration successful
plagiarism detection been met on UATs passed
integrated with VLE schedule?
Sep 2013 Year 2 external Has milestone External evaluator Report submitted &
evaluation report been met on approved
schedule?
Sep 2013 Completion reports Has milestone Project Board review Report submitted to JISC
published including been met on
overall evaluation schedule?
Mar 2014 Unit “health” reports Has milestone Stakeholder UATs passed
developed been met on workshop
schedule? Project team review
Jun 2014 Assessment/feedback Has milestone Stakeholder UATs passed
data improved in Unit been met on workshop
‘health reports’ schedule? Project team review
Through- Ongoing engagement Is communication JISC review JISC feedback
out with 05/11 programme effective? Comments on blog
blogs & twitter
3.2 Quality Assurance
Output / Outcome O1: To transform assessment and feedback
Name
When will QA be Who will carry out the QA What QA methods* / measures will be used?
carried out? work?
Jun 2012; Dec Project team DR: System development meets agreed
2012; Mar 2013 standards
TR: UATs passed
Jun 2013 Project team DR: Assessment/feedback data embedded in
Unit health reports
Jun 2013; Jun Project Board CF: Assessment & feedback systems enable
2014 benefits
Output / Outcome O2: To provide case study material
Name
When will QA be Who will carry out the QA What QA methods / measures will be used?
carried out? work?
Mar 2013 Project Director CF: Review of usage of VLE assessment tools
Project Board
Page 14 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
Jun 2012; Jun Project Board CF: Availability of assessment & feedback data
2013; Jun 2014 reviewed
Sep 2013; Sep External evaluator DR: External evaluation reports
2014 Project Board
Output / Outcome O3: To support EQAL programme
Name
When will QA be Who will carry out the QA What QA methods / measures will be used?
carried out? work?
Oct 2011 EQAL Board DR: EQAL approval to include TRAFFIC in
strand deliverables
Sep 2012; Sep EQAL Board DR: TRAFFIC reports to EQAL Board
2013; Sep 2014
*Key to QA method codes:
CF = customer feedback; DR = documentation review; TR = test results
3.3 Dissemination Plan
We have an open communication process surrounding EQAL (such as
http://www.blogs.mmu.ac.uk/eqal http://lrt.mmu.ac.uk/ltreview and, http://lrt.mmu.ac.uk/w2c
and http://www.blogs.mmu.ac.uk/eqal) and MMU will share findings of its work in this area
with the wider community – our blog postings have included candid information about
progress and challenges, and we have distilled key lessons for the JISC Design Studio.
A programme communication and evaluation strategy surrounds EQAL, which TRAFFIC will
exploit by adding updates into programme briefings and relevant items to the agenda for
stakeholder workshops and programme briefings.
TRAFFIC will also build on the enthusiasm, expertise and contacts in MMU’s established
and active community of practice on assessment. This Community of Practice includes
membership from the MMU Students’ Union, who will also be represented on the project
steering group and in drafting and reviewing the assessment and feedback principles.
We will maintain an active blog, which will remain within the LRT website beyond the funded
period and be available for JISC project archiving. We intend this blog to include video as
well as more traditional project outputs to build up a rich case study that we hope colleagues
in the sector will find useful and engaging and, indeed, will comment on as the project
progresses.
Timing Dissemination Audience Purpose Key Messages
Activity
Internal:
2 or 3 times Institution MMU staff Awareness MMU’s wider profile
a year newsletter Inform Progress reports
Completed case study
Ongoing Workshops MMU staff Engage Input & feedback
Development plans
Internal and external:
Ongoing Project website MMU staff Awareness Progress reports
Other projects within the Inform Lessons
5/11 programme Engage Outcomes
People in the wider Promote Completed case study
academic community
External:
Page 15 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
Timing Dissemination Audience Purpose Key Messages
Activity
As Programme / Other projects within the Inform Shared progress reports
scheduled cluster meetings 5/11 programme Engage Shared lessons
Shared outcomes
Completed case study
When Conference People in the wider Awareness MMU’s wider profile
opportunity presentations academic community Inform Lessons
arises Engage Outcomes
Promote Completed case study
When Journal articles People in the wider Inform MMU’s wider profile
opportunity academic community Completed case study
arises
Ongoing Reports and other Project Board Inform Progress reports
documents EQAL Board Lessons
JISC programme Outcomes
Completed case study
3.4 Exit and Embedding Plans
This project is part of a wider initiative within MMU as noted above. This means that the
project will be fully embedded within the wider programme and its outputs and outcomes will
help to support the delivery of some of its objectives.
The take up and embedding of this project’s outputs and outcomes will therefore be part of
the wider EQAL programme and will be managed within that context.
Project documentation will be held both on the project website (for at least three years after
the end of the project) and in the programme document library on our SharePoint portal.
Project Action for Take-up & Action for Exit
Outputs/Outcomes Embedding
Business process models Dissemination of “to-be” Documentation of standards
on assessment processes Identification of responsibilities for
management Agreement with academic actions
community Documentation of agreed actions
New assessment handling Training Documentation of standards
integration with VLE/SRS Communicate new features Identification of responsibilities for
Agree standards actions
Documentation of agreed actions
Assessment/feedback data Training Documentation of standards
embedded in Unit health Communicate new features Identification of responsibilities for
reports Agree response standards (feeds actions
next output) Documentation of agreed actions
Approved updated Training Documentation of standards
assess/feedback principles Communicate new features Identification of responsibilities for
+ thresholds Agree response standards actions
Documentation of agreed actions
Further assessment Training Documentation of standards
handling integration with Communicate new features Identification of responsibilities for
VLE/SRS Agree standards actions
Documentation of agreed actions
Institution-wide coursework Training Documentation
receipting integrated with Communicate new features
VLE
plagiarism detection Training Documentation
integrated with VLE Communicate new features
Page 16 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
Project Action for Take-up & Action for Exit
Outputs/Outcomes Embedding
Unit “health” reports Training Documentation of standards
developed Communicate new features Identification of responsibilities for
Agree response standards actions
Documentation of agreed actions
Assessment/feedback data Training Documentation of standards
improved in Unit ‘health Communicate new features Identification of responsibilities for
reports’ Agree response standards actions
Documentation of agreed actions
Completion reports Not applicable Documentation
published including overall
evaluation
3.5 Sustainability Plans
Project Outputs Why Sustainable Scenarios for Issues to Address
Taking Forward
Business process Process maps Create a framework Currently we have no formal
models on should be regularly for regular process process review mechanisms,
assessment reviewed as part of review within the though we do carry out reviews –
management continuous assessment and so could be embedded within
improvement feedback regime them.
Resistance to change could be a
barrier.
Assessment handling Once created this Ensure “to-be” Currently we have no formal
integration with function should process models process review mechanisms,
VLE/SRS enhance capture improved though we do carry out reviews –
assessment procedures so could be embedded within
handling on an Work to embed and them.
ongoing basis review procedures Resistance to change could be a
barrier.
Approved updated Process maps Create a framework Currently we have no formal
assess / feedback should be regularly for regular process process review mechanisms,
principles + reviewed as part of review within the though we do carry out reviews –
thresholds continuous assessment and so could be embedded within
improvement feedback regime them.
Resistance to change could be a
barrier.
Institution-wide Once created this Ensure “to-be” Currently we have no formal
coursework receipting function should process models process review mechanisms,
integrated with VLE enhance capture improved though we do carry out reviews –
assessment procedures so could be embedded within
handling on an Work to embed and them.
ongoing basis review procedures Resistance to change could be a
barrier.
plagiarism detection Once created this Ensure “to-be” Currently we have no formal
integrated with VLE function should process models process review mechanisms,
enhance feedback capture improved though we do carry out reviews –
on an ongoing basis procedures so could be embedded within
Work to embed and them.
review procedures Resistance to change could be a
barrier.
Assessment/feedback Process maps Create a framework Currently we have no formal
data improved in Unit should be regularly for regular process process review mechanisms,
‘health reports’ reviewed as part of review within the though we do carry out reviews –
continuous assessment and so could be embedded within
improvement feedback regime them.
Resistance to change could be a
barrier.
Page 17 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011
Project Identifier: Assessment & Feedback Programme – Strand A (5/11)
Version: 1.0
Contact: M. Stubbs / B. Levitan
Appendices
Appendix A. Project Budget
See separate file: TRAFFIC Budget Start-up.xlsx
Appendix B. Workpackages
See separate file: TRAFFIC workpackages Final.doc
Page 18 of 18
Document title: TRAFFIC Project Plan
Last updated: 3 Oct 2011