| Call 1: Transforming Curriculum Delivery Through Technology |
| Regarding funding for hardware – we’re thinking of buying ‘clickers’ for lecture theatres – would this OK? Would, say, £10,000 for this be too much? |
That wouldn’t necessarily be too much. For any hardware purchase you would need to balance the benefit which the institution would take, with any benefit that might derive to the wider community from the work. You also need to consider the sustainability of purchases like this – what will happen when you no longer have project funding? |
| Can an institution put in more than one bid to call I (curriculum delivery)? |
Yes – these could be from different curriculum areas within institutions. However, bear in mind that we can only fund 10-14 projects overall, and will be seeking to fund a balanced portfolio of projects. |
| Who are the markers for these calls, and how are they selected? |
Markers are selected from JISC committee members, and from the wider community. There are three markers per bid, including one from the JISC Executive (such as JISC programme managers). Markers are given guidance on the evaluation of bids, based on the evaluation criteria outlined in the circular. All marks are then collated, and a decision on bids to be funded is taken at a selection panel. We would welcome volunteers for markers for future calls – please contact Georgia Slade. |
| Regarding technology – how much scope is there for the development of new tools, or of trialling something which may have been developed through previous JISC funding, but may not have been fully tested with users? What about work on integrating tools with institutional systems? |
Building a new tool is unlikely to be suitable, but building on existing ones, and carrying out integration work, would be fine. Using a tool which hasn’t been previously user-tested would be extremely risky for these projects, as the projects need to be using robust tools with significant cohorts of learners, which would be threatened if the initial trialling of an untested tool threw up significant problems. If you are planning to develop a relatively new tool further, it will be important in the bid to make clear the evidence for the need, utility and usefulness of the tool in the light of your challenges (why don’t existing tools meet your needs?), and address the likely transferability for the wider sector. Note that any new developments would also need to be released under an open source licence. |
| If you get two proposals for the same curriculum area, do you plan to negotiate between them to get them working together? |
We would consider each individual proposal on its merits, within the constraints of the need for a balanced portfolio of projects. If two proposals in the same curriculum area were funded, we would encourage them to share ideas and information, but we would not be encouraging any more formal links or suggesting merging two projects. |
| Are the costs of the engagement with the support and synthesis project included in the £200,000 project funding? |
Yes, you will need to use project funding to cover staff time and travel costs (though JISC will cover accommodation costs at any events which involve an overnight stay.) Remember, though, that not all the days will be face to face, so you could be involved in online activities, or carrying out preparation work. It is important to make sure that appropriate staff across the project are engaged with the support and synthesis project, not just the project manager. |
| Is the three months initial period of review and planning compulsory? What if you’ve already done an internal process review? |
We do want all projects to go through these stages and share information in those first three months, but if you already have a lot of the necessary information to hand, you will need less time during those three months on some of these activities, and will be able to start on other tasks. This period will also include some collaborative activities and input from JISC, which all projects need to take part in. |
| Do the 35 days of staff engagement with the support and synthesis project have to come from the project funds from JISC, or could they be shown as matched funding? |
Showing this time as matched funding would be fine. |
| Could you unpack the setup/instantiation phase of the curriculum cycle which was mentioned in the presentation of the background to the call, and appears to be common to both calls? |
We expect that projects in both programmes will learn from each other as they are both approaching aspects of the curriculum design and delivery lifecycle from different points. The 05/08 call was around transforming the higher level processes surrounding the design of a curriculum, with a delivery aspect which demonstrates the change. The 08/08 call focuses on an transforming an existing curriculum in terms of how it engages with learners. The Delivery call obviously focuses on delivery, which could include the different instantiations of the same curriculum with different groups or types of learners. |
| Should the focus of bids be organisation-wide or just focused on one curriculum area? Would bids with these two different types of focus be differentially valued? |
Key staff across the institution need to be aware of the project and able to benefit from its lessons. Apart from this requirement, projects may choose to address a delivery challenge at the level which seems most appropriate to them. |
| Can you test and pilot software? |
The focus is on using technology with real learners, so you would need to be confident that you could do all of the work required within the time available, and leave yourself time to use a robust tool with learners for a meaningful pilot. |
| Can you use the funding for developing resources? |
No, funding is not available under this call for the development of content. |
| Where should projects position themselves between wide-ranging review and focused interventions? |
That will depend on the institutional context and challenges – you can do something small and focussed as long as it will be of relevance more widely in your institution. However, note that the call asks for projects to take a joined-up approach to supporting curriculum delivery, so you wouldn’t want to focus exclusively on one technology or one aspect of curriculum delivery. |
| How separately should we regard the design and delivery bids? |
They will be marked entirely separately, though if you are bidding into both calls you might like to note in your delivery bid any potential synergies with your design bid, if both are funded. |
| Call II: Assessment Demonstrators |
| If these projects are planned to start in October, and finish by the end of March, that leaves a very short timescale for the projects, including only one assessment period for students. How do you see that working? |
These projects are not aimed at trialling software with large cohorts, or in high-stakes situations. The technology concerned is likely to be at the prototype stage, so may not be robust. Testing is more likely to involve small cohorts of volunteer students who are willing to test out the system. |
| Can projects use software which wasn’t developed with JISC funding? |
The focus of the call is on the further development of JISC-funded toolkits, but that doesn’t exclude non-JISC-funded developments. |
| Are the demonstrator projects trialling the accessibility of the toolkits? |
Not specifically, although guidance on designing for accessibility was given to the toolkits and will be given to the new projects. The focus at this stage is more on a technical proof of concept. |
| General Questions |
| What level of matched funding is required? Does the level of the institutional contribution affect the evaluation of the bid? |
It will affect the score on the value for money criterion. You need to decide on an appropriate level of institutional contribution based on the benefit that your institution will derive from the project. |