Talk:OERu/Strategic plan 2014 - 2017/2016 Operational priorities
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|MVP Task Force||3||18:40, 2 December 2015|
Combining four working groups into a single task force could well complicate and extend the duration of joint meetings. In the first instance, it could be more efficient to work in two sub-groups with the SPWG and CPSWG working together to identify the courses to be offered. The CAQWG and SCCT could then work together on ensuring the viability of the initial MVP implementation.
Extending duration of meetings is a valid concern and we need to think carefully about the optimal structure for progressing MVP during 2016. I have two substantive concerns:
- There are a number of critical dependencies in order to progress MVP and achieve a successful implementation. For example, the development of the framework for the approval of the award certification for the CertHE at UHI is dependant on the OERu articulation process. Existing policies at UHI under their collaborative provision regulations through articulation would, in my option, enable us to overcome a major restriction regarding any changes to existing policy for residency requirements -- currently 50% of the credits must be earned locally restricting credit transfer. I suspect that a change in policy regarding residency requirements would take too long to implement. An effective and timely resolution would require close consultation between SCCT, CPSWG and SPWG. During the OERu partner meetings the CAQWG proposed the concept of "Programme directors" as a mechanism to facilitate course approvals which contribute to meaningful streams.
- For individuals working on multiple working groups, spreading the MVP related objectives among separate groups radically increases the time for attending meetings. For example, I serve on 7 groups - attending individual meetings for progressing MVP is the equivalent of two working days.
Mmmm - thinking out loud here. Looking at the roles and purposes of the working groups, perhaps the CPSWG and the CAQWG should be amalgamated. There is considerable overlap between these groups. I am still of the view that for 2016, the SCCT and CPSWG need to be working closely together in order to progress our policy documentation in parallel with the implementation of MVP. Once we have achieved the objectives of the task force - the group can be dissolved.
I estimate that +80% of the time of the SCCT, CPSWG and CAWWG during 2016 will be focused on MVP objectives, so in theory we could actually save on meeting time while improving coordination. The SPWG has a wider remit than MVP this year, so it would make sense to keep separate meetings for this group, but invite members to attend the MVP task group meetings for this year.
I acknowledge your concerns about the logistics of how best to manage the complexity of the MVP task without unduly increasing the number of meetings necessary to facilitate effective collaboration.
Other thoughts: (i)We need to ensure that partner institutions contributing to the first offer are represented on the MVP Task Force by the person best able to contribute, and with the time available, to coordinate the institutional efforts to meet the deadline that will need to be established; (ii)How soon might we be in a position to have a list of the courses/institutions likely to be involved in the initial offer? (ii)Maybe the MVP Task Force and associated emerging issues could be included on the agenda of the forthcoming OERu ManCom meeting?
Yep, we're juggling a few balls and need to ensure that we do what we can to assist and support partner institutions contributing to the first offer of MVP. As an open collaboration, anyone can join a group and I suggest that we strongly encourage the responsible people to join the MVP task group. Also arising out of the 2015-10 partner's meeting is the need to improve mentorship and the tech group are thinking about implementing "office hours" - a regular synchronous session which people can join to get help with a human touch.
In response to your other questions:
- Unlikely that we will have a complete list of courses for the initial offer until start of the 2016 semester in the Southern hemisphere - although I am aware of a number of additional courses that can be added to the list before then. We also need to define what we mean by "initial" offer. I am reticent to publicly launch the initial offer until we have "signed" guarantees that the learners will get credit towards the credential(s) we will have on offer. Perhaps there are ways to implement this incrementally.
- Definitely, the MVP task force discussion will be on the OERuMC agenda for sure. I will also encourage members of the Committee to read and have a think about these issues before our meeting.