E N D
OPAL: outcomes for personal and adaptive learning Rachel Ellaway1, Patricia Warren2, Catriona Bell3, 1MVM Learning Technology Section, 2Medical Teaching Organisation, 3Veterinary Teaching Organisation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
OPAL • Edinburgh Principal’s e-Learning Fund Project 2004-2005 (12 months funding) • Opportunity to create staff and student focused curriculum maps for medicine and veterinary medicine • Instantiated inside their respective VLEs • Divergent practices following curriculum needs • Based on learning objectives and outcomes • Multi-dimensional matrices • … why do this?
Using the mapStudents Where will I learn about about X ? How will I be assessed about about X ? Where did I learn about about X ? How do I learn about about X ? How will learning about X be relevant to me in practice ? How does X link in with what I will learn later in the course ?
Using the map Teaching Staff Is X being assessed? When are the students taught about X ? How does X relate to other topics? Do I need to include X in my classes, or has it been covered already ? What will students already have learned about X before coming to my class/rotation ?
Using the map Curriculum developers Does the teaching and assessment of X match up? Is X being taught and assessed too much or too little? Where is this particular discipline addressed in the curriculum? How does the teaching of X match professional competencies?
Using the map Quality Assurance Bodies Where is X provided in the curriculum ? What kinds of physiology topics are being taught? How is X provided in the curriculum ? How much assessment is there in the curriculum ? Where (and how) is X assessed in the curriculum ?
Using the map Prospective Students What would they teach me in this particular course ? What would I need to do throughout the course ? How would I be taught and assessed? How is this course different to those at other schools ?
OPAL: process • Iteratively built system • Collecting and coding learning objectives: • Terminal outcomes • Session instance • Year and module instance • Classification - MeSH (Medicine) or LoC (Vets) based • Keywords: curriculum, teaching and assessment methods • Mapping to • Scottish Doctors and Tomorrows Doctors • R(D)SVS Programme Outcomes (based on RCVS “Day One Skills” expected of new graduate) • Many issues encountered …
Coding and Semantics i • Learning objective statements in many forms: • Unitary, compound list, bulleted list, hierarchy, prose • Needed to be unitary - comprehensible as an independent statement • Many needed to be normalised - restructured and revalidated - in new form • Dealing with semantic complexity e.g. synonyms: locomotor, bones and joints, rheumatology etc problematic for syntactic systems (computers) • Medical classification using MeSH: • US system - US language and spelling • Subjective trees and hierarchies • Missing terms - redefined terms - EdMeSH • When to use tree inheritance • How to handle resulting glossary
Coding and Semantics ii • Required vocabularies for: • teaching method (PBL, bedside, self-directed) • assessment mode (OSCE, portfolio, exam) • curriculum structures (semester, rotation, attachment) • Etc - whither METRO? • Stability of curriculum outcomes (internal for Medics vs external for Vets) • Versioning between academic sessions • Relationship to ever more granular curriculum representations • Ownership and maintenance by teaching staff
Relation to parent systems • All OPAL management, representation and linking are fully integrated with respective programme’s VLEs • Follows an object oriented architecture • Connects with all basic system objects: people, events, resources, information etc • Cross-connects with emerging subsystems - PPD, logbooks etc • Cross-mapping opportunities (SDMCG, MEDINE Tuning) • Anticipated OPAL becoming the VLE’s underlying semantic and ontological underpinning layer (SOUL)
Diverging and converging Practice • OPAL for medicine and veterinary medicine differs: • Outcome framework - internal vs external • Keywording - structured vs unstructured, MeSH vs LoC • Granularity of objectives • Intra-system connectivity • And converge: • Versioning, ownership and unitary statements • Multiple classifications • Complexity and extent of process • Limited ability to carry out - central support staff as curriculum cartographers
Unresolved Issues • Moving to curriculum mainstream with appropriate resourcing • How to get curriculum-wide buy-in and commitment from teaching staff • How to accommodate the multi-dimensional and semantically complex nature of the task more efficiently - without losing functionality • Resolving tensions between process and product • Resolving inherent partialities of curriculum cartographers • How to represent the OPAL map in many different ways to different users for different purposes
Where next? • Handing over LO ownership to teachers • Completing ‘first pass’ curriculum map • Roll out student and staff representation and tools (restructuring VLEs) • Finesse and speed up process • Appropriate resourcing and commitment • Link these maps with other maps elsewhere • Do all of this in a sustainable way …
OPAL: outcomes for personal and adaptive learning Rachel Ellaway1, Patricia Warren2, Catriona Bell3, 1MVM Learning Technology Section, 2Medical Teaching Organisation, 3Veterinary Teaching Organisation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK