The next logical step after addressing nomination of external examiners was to look at the later stages of the examination process. Initial intent was to reimplement the full work- flow in software, although uncertainty about feasibility limited this. While under normal circumstances a student would proceed linearly through a number of steps from arranging for submission through to graduation, in cases such as requiring major corrections to a the- sis, or difficulties nominating an external examiner, the process required some steps to be repeated. Additionally each step required to be audited individually. Unfortunately with limited time available it was felt that it was more practical to focus on supporting tools rather than a redesign.
From discussion with Registry and academic staff two of the most significant causes of time taken are entering details into the existing forms, and correcting errors where such details are mis-entered. To streamline this process, functionality was added to MMS based on the same technology used for coursework coversheet generation (see section 7.4.1), to merge data into the forms as Word documents from central records.
9.6
Conclusion
In the first year of the new process for submitting progress reports to the Pro Dean (aca- demic year 2010/1) there is a substantial increase in student report return rate (see table 9.1). Note that this table shows full time PGR students against each year they are regis- tered for, and reports against the year the report is submitted in. There are more school progress reports than students in 2008/9 and 2009/0 due to reports being submitted late from previous years, and counted against the year submitted in.
An increase in return rate by students is clearly visible, with around three times the number of reports returned in 2010/1 compared to 2009/0. Reports are now of course instantly available to the Pro Dean once submitted, drastically improving timeliness of the report and accordingly any response to issues raised.
Academic Year Student Reports Supervisor Reports Full Time PGR Students
2008/9 80 657 625
2009/0 155 775 648
2010/1 475 690 754
Table 9.1: Return Rates for Progress Reports to Pro-Dean
Informal feedback on the external examiner nomination process suggests that it has signif- icantly reduced scope for errors, especially submission of incomplete forms, although the process to set up and navigate the tool is more complicated than would be ideal. Lastly, there has been very limited feedback on the examination process forms, but initial impres- sions would appear that without more significant work the changes to date do not provide sufficient motivation to overcome the inertia of existing workflows.
Chapter 10
Case Study: LAVA
10.1
Context
The Laconia Acropolis Virtual Archaeology project (LAVA) was a research project by Kris Getchell[31][32], attempting to provide a virtual fieldwork environment for students study- ing archaeology. Places on actual fieldwork assignments for archaeology students are lim- ited, meaning that many students are unable to partake of a key tool for gaining hands-on experience.LAVA provided game-like tools for allowing students to experiment with plan- ning and executing of a dig, and exploring dig sites.
The LAVA project consisted of multiple different tools, many of which required functional- ity MMS was well placed to support. MMS acted as a control plane for LAVA, providing it with authentication and authorisation (in particular management of lists of students on the module), discussion forums, group work support, and progress tracking. Three new tools were developed by researchers working on the LAVA project and integrated into MMS:
1. Archaeological dig management simulation, covering the planning of the dig, hiring of staff and purchase of equipment, and management of resources as the dig pro- gresses. Access to a 3D version of the dig site was also managed through this tool, although delivered through software independent of MMS.
2. Group work tool for allowing students to work collaboratively on a shared document, in this case a dig proposal and funding application.
3. Map exploration tools, for allowing students to navigate through maps of archaeo- logical digs. This was used to allow them to explore the site they were proposing a dig for, and see examples of actual artifacts found on the site. See section 10.6.
All of these tools are discussed in detail later in this chapter.
Some adaptions were also made to the MMS core to add a structured workflow around the tools students would use, so that they had to look at the site before they could start writing their dig proposal, and complete the proposal before they could start their actual dig.
10.2
Use of MMS
The tools made extensive use of MMS’ student management functions, pulling group infor- mation from MMS to determine which students were working together, as well as to check students had access to the tools, authenticate user access, handle authorisation for admin- istrators, etc. These tools also used the rendering framework provided by MMS for data tables (Flex). This reduced development effort, while providing students with an interface style they were already familiar with.