Feedback thoughts and suggestions on the high-level logic model
There are two outputs - undergraduate and postgraduate credentials, which I understand to be BS and post-doc level. Right? Where is "graduate"?
The words are repeated in the diagram, in particular, the word "open." I trust it's a conscious design decision to repeat it (10 times)? How about the word "credentials" twice - is it for emphasis, as well?
The differences between outputs, outcomes and impact can be stronger. Right now outputs are credentials, outcomes are "credible qualifications" (is it different from "credentials"?) and impact contains pathways for "credible credentials" (a combination of "credentials" and "credible qualifications"?) I think these three have to be phrased in a more distinctive manner.
Hi Maria,
Thanks for the feedback -- the terminology is based on that typically used in Commonwealth countries (just because the three initial anchor partners reside in Commonwealth Countries.)
- Undergraduate would for example be a Diploma or Bachelors Degree.
- Postgraduate would include Honours, Masters, PhD and Post-doc.
However, this eludes to the importance of a transnational qualifications framework so the level of qualification and corresponding nomenclature in different countries is clear.
Yep -- conscious design to repeat open with every initiative.
I agree the differences between ouputs and outcome statements must be specified more clearly - -which will come in the subsequent phases where the KPIS, measurable outcomes etc are specified.
The major distinction between outputs and outcomes is timing (i.e. short term and longer term). For example, initially the OERu aims to develop two credentials (Outputs). Students will enrol, study and complete these qualifications (Outcome). The ultimately this experience will contribute to the overall impact of providing free learning for all students worldwide.
In this context, credentials and qualifications are used interchangeably.
