Completion Report
Project Summary:
The schools of Art, Design and ESALA within ECA grade their student work against learning outcomes. The only way to do this is within Learn using the rubric tool (for either Learn assignment boxes or Turnitin assignment boxes). However, Learn aggregates these scores to a single grade and it is this single grade which is returned to the relevant column in the Grade Centre.
Exam Boards require only the single level grade/mark for each assignment; but for the purpose of internal examination and moderation graders and others involved in assessment require both the single grade/mark per assignment as well as the rubric level grades/marks for each learning outcome that is assessed (typically 3 but can be up to 5).
| Scope | Deliverables | Benefits | Success Criteria | Outcome |
The new APT exam board functionality in EUCLID needs to map to the outputs from Learn i.e. moved from Learn to APT with no additional, or very minimal, manipulation of data/additional administration. Only the single level grade/mark is required in APT but the rubric level information needs to be readily available to support assessment. | To develop new building blocks within Learn to enable rubric-level learning outcomes to be: - viewed by students - viewed by tutors - to provide an export function to enable course secretaries to output Rubric grades by either assignment or course into APT. | Reducing risk error in the reporting of student grades and drastically reduce both academic and administrative duplication of effort. Being able to extract rubric-level grades within Learn would mean only one (golden) copy of data would be required. To Significantly Improve the student experience in viewing assignment results by enabling meaningful presentation of grade information. | Implementation of the new Learn building blocks | Benefits realised and solution succesfully delivered |
Analysis of Resource Usage:
Staff Usage Estimate: 56 days
Staff Usage Actual: 40 days
Staff Usage Variance: -29%
Other Resource Estimate: 0 days
Other Resource Actual: 0 days
Other Resource Variance: 0%
Explanation for variance:
Positive Business Requirements Workshop engagement was such that there was no need to keep revisiting. Requirements were clear and consise from the outset.
Development came to the Business Requirements Workshop prepared with a suitable solution.
Key Learning Points:
What went well ?
Full engagement by Business Leads making timely decisions and enthusiastic engagement from Development, Production Management and Myles Blaney (and Team) meant momentum was maintained through out.
Team work was key, pulling together and stepping up when challenges were raised around permissions which impacted on our projected GO LIVE.
What didn't go so well?
Proactive progress communication; occasionally progress was left to be reported at team meetings as apposed to real time which meant completion of workpackages came as a surprise and the project plan needed adjusting accordingly and planned resource engaged earlier than expected.
Stakeholder Business Requirements were difficult to reflect in BRD in any kind of detail because the solution came from Dev Tech but limited time available to contribute to the content meant a light touch to requirements.
Outstanding issues:
NONE