Naomi Cloutier, Carolyn Teare, Irwin Devries Thompson Rivers University

1. The power of open information in open
learning curriculum development
Naomi Cloutier
Carolyn Teare
Irwin DeVries
Thompson Rivers University, Open Learning
Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

2. The Institution
The Open Learning division of Thompson Rivers
University supports:
 Open access to undergraduate and graduate online
courses and programs
 Creating and using OER and open textbooks
 Creating and crediting open courses through OERu
 Open assessment practices using Prior Learning
Assessment and Recognition (PLAR).
2

3. Introduction
Discussions about technology in distance education
typically focus on pedagogy, design, learning
environments and effectiveness
Technological infrastructure is also critical in
managing the process of creating and sustaining
distance and open education courses with their
inter- and co-dependencies, linear and non-linear
aspects.
3

4. Philosophy and Context
 Institutions using a “project management” approach (Bates,
2011) to online course development face organizational
challenges as online learning demand grows.
 Paucity of research in “meso-level” online distance
education issues, i.e. management, organization and
technology (Zawaki and Anderson, 2014) led us to consider
this research project.
4

5. Prior to 2013: Workflows
• Tedious to analyze system productivity
• Difficult to assess historical events and trends
• Some projects “lost” in the system for years
Administration
• Set their own priorities without
knowing the needs of others, to
their mutual benefit or detriment.
• Each area was a silo
Managers/Supervisors
• Developed their own
spreadsheets and used
various tracking methods.
• Used and understood
terminology
inconsistently.
Team Members
5

6. Prior to 2013 6

7. Philosophy Shift
 Open Learning shifted from centralized to distributed project
management with a focus on established process workflow.
 Information sharing is one of the key elements in distributed
project management.
7

8. Philosophy Shift
 “The goal of distributed project management is to invert the
process of managing the project and place a significant amount
of the effort related to project management on the team
members themselves….In essence, each team member can be
viewed as an independent business unit with their own
accountability towards the tasks they are asked to perform as
part of the larger project outcome” (Ferrilla, 1997).
8

9. Design principles 9
Course Milestones
NOT Time
• Built-in Workflows
Democratic
Communication
Tool
• Minimal Project
Management
Open Source
Platform
• Web Data Entry
by Role

10. Course
Past
Versions
Current
Version
Future
Version
Data For the People (D4P)
 Course is an object that has a
History, Present, and Future:
All Inter-connected
 Teams determined what to
track
 Built with:
 MySQL Database
 CodeIgnitor PHP framework tool
(MIT open license)
https://codeigniter.com/
10

11. D4P: Use Case – Team Member 11
Course
History
Version
Overview
Team Tab

12. D4P: Use Case – Supervisor 12
Development
Overview
Team
Progress
Access to
Details

13. D4P: Use Case – Administration 13
Key Performance
Indicators
Academic Area
Overview
Portfolio
Summary

14. Results: After 5 years
 User Survey: All Staff/Faculty/Administrators
52 recipients received survey: 70% Response rate
14
High Use
• 51% Daily
Ease of Use
• 82%
Searching
• 88% Entering
Data
Provides
Needed
Overview
• 77%
Improves Work
Effectiveness
• 68%

15. Results: After 5 years
 Our own observations
 Provides common source of information – body of knowledge
 Still resistance to data entry: Some people don’t like the nuisance
 Doesn’t replace, but supports face to face communication
 Work in Progress – continual improvement
Alerts to Users
Adjusting location of information
Additional Reports
Sharing Data
15

16. Conclusions
 Distributed Project Management using openly
shared information offers a viable method to
handle curriculum development
 Effort in defining organizational needs by whole
organization will increase project success
 Flexible approach is key
16

17. Contact Information:
 Irwin Devries, idevries@tru.ca
 Naomi Cloutier, ncloutier@tru.ca
 Carolyn Teare, cteare@tru.ca
 Slide Share: Tru open education_global2017
17

18. References
Bates, A. W., & Sangra, A. (2011). Managing technology in higher
education: Strategies for transforming teaching and learning. John
Wiley & Sons.
Ferrilla, B. (1996). Distributed Project Management-Managing the
Process of Managing Projects. In Proceedings – Project Management
Institute (pp. 899-906).
Zawacki-Richter, O., & Anderson, T. (Eds.). (2014). Online distance
education: Towards a research agenda. Athabasca University Press.
18