1. OPAL: outcomes for personal and adaptive learning Rachel Ellaway 1, Patricia Warren 2, Catriona Bell 3, Phillip Evans 2 and Susan Rhind 3 1 MVM Learning Technology Section, 2 Medical Teaching Organisation, 3 Veterinary Teaching Organisation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

2. OPAL University e-Learning Fund Project 2004-2005 Opportunity to create staff and student focused curriculum maps for medicine and veterinary medicine Instantiated inside their respective VLEs Divergent practices following curriculum needs Based on learning objectives and outcomes But really … why do this?

3. Using the map Students How does X link in with what I will learn later in the course ? Where did I learn about about X ? How will learning about X be relevant to me in practice ? How do I learn about about X ? Where will I learn about about X ? How will I be assessed about about X ?

4. Using the map Teaching Staff When are the students taught about X ? What will students already have learned about X before coming to my class/rotation ? Do I need to include X in my classes, or has it been covered already ? How does X relate to other topics? Is X being assessed?

5. Using the map Curriculum developers Does the teaching and assessment of X match up? How does the teaching of X match professional competencies? Where is this particular discipline addressed in the curriculum? Is X being taught and assessed too much or too little?

6. Using the map Quality Assurance Bodies How is X provided in the curriculum ? Where is X provided in the curriculum ? Where (and how) is X assessed in the curriculum ? How much assessment is there in the curriculum ? What kinds of physiology topics are being taught?

7. Using the map Prospective Students How is this course different to those at other schools ? What would they teach me in this particular course ? What would I need to do throughout the course ? How would I be taught and assessed?

8. OPAL: process Iteratively built system Collecting and coding learning objectives: –Terminal outcomes –Session instance –Year and module instance –Classification - MeSH-based –Keywords: curriculum, teaching and assessment methods –Mapping to Scottish Doctors and Tomorrows Doctors Many issues encountered …

9. Coding and Semantics i Learning objective statements in many forms: –Unitary, compound list, bulleted list, hierarchy, prose –Needed to be unitary - comprehensible as an independent statement –Many needed to be normalised - restructured and revalidated - in new form Dealing with semantic complexity e.g. synonyms: locomotor, bones and joints, rheumatology etc problematic for syntactic systems (computers) Medical classification using MeSH: –US system - US language and spelling –Subjective trees and hierarchies –Missing terms - redefined terms - EdMeSH –When to use tree inheritance –How to handle resulting glossary

10. Coding and Semantics ii Required vocabularies for: –teaching method (PBL, bedside, self-directed) –assessment mode (OSCE, portfolio, exam) –curriculum structures (semester, rotation, attachment) Stability of curriculum outcomes (internal for Medics vs external for Vets) Versioning between academic sessions Relationship to ever more granular curriculum representations Ownership and maintenance by teaching staff

11. Relation to parent systems All OPAL management, representation and linking are fully integrated with respective programme’s VLEs Anticipated OPAL becoming the VLE’s underlying semantic and ontological underpinning layers (SOULs) Follows an object oriented architecture Connects with all basic system objects: people, events, resources, information etc Cross-connects with emerging subsystems - PPD, logbooks etc Cross-mapping opportunities (SDMCG, MEDINE Tuning)

12. Diverging and converging Practice OPAL for medicine and veterinary medicine differs: –Outcome framework - internal vs external –Keywording - structured vs unstructured –Granularity of objectives –Intra-system connectivity And converge: –Versioning, ownership and unitary statements –Multiple classifications –Complexity and extent of process –Limited ability to carry out - central support staff as curriculum cartographers

13. Unresolved Issues How to move the process to curriculum mainstream (with appropriate resourcing) How to get curriculum-wide buy-in and commitment from teaching staff How to accommodate the multi-dimensional and semantically complex nature of the task more efficiently - without losing functionality Resolving tensions between process and product Resolving inherent partialities of curriculum cartographers How to represent the OPAL map in many different ways to different users for different purposes

14. Where next? Complete full curriculum LO maps Complete system object mapping Complete student and staff rendering and representation and tools Finesse and speed up process Hand over LO ownership to teachers Link these maps with other maps elsewhere in a sustainable way … … points to educational informatics as a discrete discipline and basis for practice

15. OPAL: outcomes for personal and adaptive learning Rachel Ellaway 1, Patricia Warren 2, Catriona Bell 3, Phillip Evans 2 and Susan Rhind 3 1 MVM Learning Technology Section, 2 Medical Teaching Organisation, 3 Veterinary Teaching Organisation, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK