NTFS Projects 2009-10
Stage Two Project Bid
Project Title: Development and evaluation of a pedagogic model using online resources in
an authentic assessment as a driver for the development of higher order cognitive skills
Lead Institution: University of Westminster
1.
Executive summary
The aim of this project is to develop and research the efficacy of a pedagogic model
designed to enhance a student’s ability to discriminate effectively in their use of online
resources. This model draws on the constructivist paradigm and a number of theories,
including those of authentic assessment and constructive alignment. Designed to maximise
the benefits of digital resources in professional learning, the model is supported by an online
tool, the web-resource appraisal platform (WRAP). This will guide students through a
structured process helping them to develop the skills to identify, and discriminate between,
diverse online resources with a view to producing an authoritative output of value to their
professional environment. The WRAP will be developed to accommodate ‘the student as
expert’ authoring aspect of the pedagogic model.
By investigating this novel approach to student-centred authentic assessment and learning,
the project will contribute to the knowledge-base underpinning pedagogy pertinent to the use
of technology in authentic assessment. Project deliverables such as authortitative discipline
specific artefacts and the student-centred authoring software, provide an important practical
edge to the project as these products will become tools for dissemination and promote
sustained impact.
Words:190
2.
Background
The focus of UK higher education is ‘student-centred learning’, where students are expected
to build on, and construct, their own knowledge through appropriate guidance. This implies
that the constructivist paradigm underlies learning in UK Higher Education at least to some
extent. Constructivism proposes that ‘learners take an active role in the learning process,
acquiring information for themselves and processing that information in a subjective way,
leading to deeper understanding of the material’1. This approach has been enriched by the
ready availability of information through the World Wide Web and technology is now an
integral part of a student’s experience in Higher Education. Many staff have taken the
opportunity to use technology in innovative ways to encourage learning and student
engagement and it has been suggested that new learning theories need to be developed to
underpin such learning. However, others have suggested that ‘the challenge is to describe
how the technology allows underlying processes common to all learning to function
effectively’2. Indeed, constructivism also underlies many pedagogic approaches to e-learning
‘through real-world simulations, collaborations with other students, and by giving the learners
access to knowledge resources. However, whilst existing theories may fit, pedagogies do not
necessarily do so.
The Web 2.0 revolution has promoted even greater accessibility to a range of resources
which can be used for both professional and educational purposes3,4,5. Digital repositories
have been developed but many potential educational resources are neither catalogued, nor
ordered, and the provenance of those freely available on the web is sometimes difficult to
establish. This explosion of readily available material means that searching for, and finding,
authoritative material presents challenges not only to those of us most used to searching for
it but more particularly for our students. Thus, just encouraging our students to access such
resources may not be enough, our pedagogic approach has to support students in
developing discrimination, judgement and critical analysis to enable them to use these
resources effectively. This is particularly important where the learning is part of a student’s
professional development and where the outcomes of such learning are expected to be
authoritative and authentic. When such outcome are part of a student’s assessment, they
encourage the development of deeper learning, as proposed by Biggs’ Constructive
alignment theory6. When assessment is authentic and aligned with learning and teaching, it
encourages reflection, interpretation and critical analysis7,8,9,10,11. Authentic assessment
artefacts are those which allow a student to demonstrate his/her learning outcomes so ‘as to
reflect an authentic, real-life task which they might be expected to undertake in the
workplace.11’ An authentic approach to assessment aligned with pedagogic model
supporting student-centred learning underpins this project.
3.
Purpose
The aim of this project is to develop and research the efficacy of a pedagogic model
designed to enhance a student’s ability to discriminate effectively in their use of online
resources. The model, which follows the constructivist paradigm will encompass the notion
of the ‘student as expert’. It will facilitate students in drawing on their own experiences and
existing knowledge, whilst using online resources to construct new knowledge. Recent work
has demonstrated that tutors and students may be unaware of the criteria they use to
appraise and discriminate between online resources12. In an attempt to address these
issues, the Web-Resource Appraisal Process (WRAP) pilot project was undertaken at the
University of South Australia (UniSA). Designed to support students in Health Sciences to
develop their skills in writing systematic reviews of the literature using databases such as the
Cochrane Collection13, students identified topics relevant to their professional practice,
critically reviewed the evidence from database searches and produced outputs which
integrated their research and professional knowledge. The WRAP tool guided students to
suitable databases, and informed their evaluation approach, providing a framework for the
critical appraisal and synthesis of the content selected for inclusion. The systematic reviews
developed were published online and reviewed by experts, using detailed peer review
guidelines. A schematic overview of the process is shown in Figure 1. Student feedback
suggested that this model provided a structured process, scaffolding the development of
advanced critical appraisal skills.
For this pedagogic model to have a wider applicability, it needs to support the use of a
variety of digital resources, which are often not easily traceable, accessible, indexed or even
catalogued 14,15. It must also allow for a range of authoritative outputs. This project will
extend the pilot model to enable students from a range of professional disciplines to create
outputs using diverse digital resources available through the web. The pedagogic model will
be developed to encourage learner autonomy and embrace the concept of the ‘student as
expert’. The WRAP tool will be enhanced to allow user control in delivering the authentic
artefact.
Figure 1: The proposed pedagogic model.
The white boxes show proposed changes to the current model to make it more studentcentred.
Tutor
Supports development
so output is authentic
and meets assessment
criteria
Facilitates summary of
resources and
development of inclusion
criteria
Facilitates development
of critical appraisal
guidelines customised
for the diverse range of
content accessed .
Student
Identify topic relevant to
professional practice. Develop
plan for assessed authentic
task
Summarise information on
resources meeting inclusion
criteria Seek guidance for
decision making from tutors.
Detailed critical appraisal of
material and development of
output.. Decision making
supported by online discussion
with peers and tutors
Technology
Professional knowledge,
and preliminary online
searching contribute to
plan
Students identify and
judge online resources to
inform authentic output
Online discussion with
tutor and peers
Supports student in
developing authentic
output
Marks and provides
feedback on work.
Develop/modify peer
review guidelines
Feedback used to modify
pedagogy and WRAP
tool
Revise work and publish report
online.
External experts use peer
review guidelines to
provide feedback online.
Opportunity to respond to the
peer review and engage in
ongoing dialogue with peers
and experts. Authentic output
with validity
Provide feedback on entire
process.
This project will differ from the pilot in that it will be research informed, the resources will be
wide ranging in format and provenance and the WRAP tool will be developed to allow
greater opportunities for self-authoring, reflection and feedback. Iterations of the different
stages of the pedagogic model will allow students to contribute as experts as their selfefficacy develops. Thus this project aims to:

address the challenges of helping students to develop higher order critical thinking
and writing skills

explore the impact of the production of artefacts that contribute to professional
knowledge, and are likely to be encountered in the workplace, on student learning
and self-efficacy

evaluate the impact on self-directed learning of a learning environment which
encourages exploration and collaboration with peers, academics and professionals

contribute to the evidence-base for authentic assessment and the pedagogy of online
learning.
4.
Methodology
Participants
Stages 1 and 2 of the project will involve Health Science and Law students at UniSA (who
will repeat the pilot study in order for us to obtain baseline research data on the more
didactic approach from students who have already used the model) and students on the MA
Visual Culture Studies and Museum and Gallery Studies at the University of Westminster
(UW; who will undertake a didactic approach before trialling the proposed pedagogic model).
The UW students have a professional background and are required to use diverse sources
of information (for example video, images, sound files, Wikis, discussion lists) in their work
and studies. These provide important contextual information and, in the example of museum
and gallery archives, provide an essential way of learning how professional materials are
organised and information is used in the workplace. The ability to find, and interpret the
value of, these materials is a key aspect of professional development. In this study, students
will have access to the repositories of Tate Britain and the British Museum, as well as
resources on the web. These repositories will contain the type of resources that students
may be expected to produce as authentic assessment artefacts and thus will provide an
added dimension to the project.
During the second stage of the project we will enlist further partners in the project to take
part at stage three in which they will test the research-informed model and self-authoring
WRAP tool in their own disciplines. We already have interest from the Universities of
Bournemouth, Surrey and Portsmouth.
Research Methods
This work is embedded in the constructivist paradigm and is underpinned not only by those
concepts identified above but by a wide range of others16,17,18,19,20. Confining our approach by
a single concept would potentially constrain both the value and validity of our outcomes.
Therefore we will take a mixed methods approach, the evidence from which will inform our
conceptual framework for the emerging pedagogy. The methods to be used will include a
Delphi study (to elicit the views of experts on the barriers to and enablers of the use of online
resources in producing authentic outputs of value to the workplace) and phenomenography
(to understand the experiences and perceptions of those engaging with the pedagogic
model and WRAP tool). Further details are provided in the Activities and Outputs section
below.
5.
Activities and Outputs
The project is divided into activity periods starting in August 2010. Start and end dates of
specific activities are detailed thus: 0-0.5, 1-2 etc.
Activities
Outputs
Stages 1-3 Management
Establishment of project team. Development of

detailed project and research plan (0-1) LJER
Detailed project plan with
responsibilities, actions and
milestones for all aspects of
Establishment of project advisory group
(including students, evaluation experts and
the project

colleagues from organisations involved (0-1)
LJER)
Advisory board minutes and
associated documentation

Ethics approval; informed
consent forms.
Ethics application (0-0.5) LJER

Job descriptions and person
specifications
Recruitment of staff (0-1) GS

Module handbook and other
relevant information detailing
Identification of Stage 1 student cohort in UK
student activities and
and UniSA. Agreed assessment and pedagogy
identification of cohort
(0-1) (PR;DG)
involved.

Management of all meetings. (Admin)
Team meeting notes and
monthly financial statements

Preparation of evaluation reports (Project Team
Formative and summative
evaluation reports
-PT)
Stage 1: Learning and Teaching
Guidelines for staff, students and reviewers

Guidelines for staff, students
using the tool (informed by Delphi study)
and reviewers for using WRAP
(Res/LJER/DG)
tool

MA students in UK undertake authentic
assessment task without use of pedagogic
Student results as data for
comparison

model or WRAP Tool (1-10) (PR/VD)
List of new
disciplines/institutions to
engage at Stage 3 with
UniSA Health Science and Law students repeat
required curriculum
pilot but included in research plan (1-10)
modifications
(DG/VW)
Other disciplines invited to join trial in Stage 3 to
allow for curriculum modifications (8-14)(Project
Team)
Stage 2: Learning and Teaching
UW MA students use WRAP tool and pedagogic

model to produce authoritative outputs reviewed
by external experts online. (13-20)(PR)
comparison

Student outputs

Student input to research
UniSA students repeat as Stage 1 (Longitudinal
data). (13-20) (DG/VW)
Student results as data for
study

Guidelines for self-authoring
version of WRAP tool
Development of guidelines for self-authoring

WRAP tool (JC/GS)
New disciplines /institutions
prepared to trial pedagogy and
WRAP tool.
Curriculum changes made by new participants
at Stage 3 (13-24) (New participants)
Stage 3: Learning and Teaching
UW MA students use new authoring tool (25-30)

Student data and outputs
(PR/VD)

Input into research study; data
allowing comparison for first
UniSA students (who used old version) use new
time users, experienced users,
WRAP tool (25-30) (DG/VW)
disciplinary differences.
Other disciplines to use WRAP tool (25-30)
(New Partners)
Stage 1 Research
A Delphi study with students, tutors and

Delphi Stage 1 questionnaire
professionals undertaken to identify the key

Report on Stage 1 Delphi
barriers and enablers to using online resources
outcomes: barriers and
in the proposed pedagogic model and the
enablers to using online
affordances required of the WRAP tool to make
resources to create
the learning experience truly student-centred.
authoritative outputs

Participants will include students and colleagues
Questions to inform Delphi
Stage 2 process
in Health Sciences and Law at UniSA (who

Report on Delphi Stage 2
have used the WRAP tool), students and staff at

Questionnaire for Stage 3
Westminster, colleagues at the Tate Gallery and
professionals who will act as online reviewers
(refined for Stage 4).

for student outputs.
Published, peer-reviewed
paper on key barriers and
enablers to using online
The first iteration will be a questionnaire to the
resources and the affordances
identified participants, the results of which will
of the WRAP tool
inform a subsequent face-to-face discussion
(facilitated by videoconferencing). As a result of
this engagement, a further questionnaire will be
sent out to participants requiring rating of the
identified barriers and enablers. The final
iteration will also be a questionnaire to establish
the degree of convergence between the various
‘experts’. This process will help to establish
disciplinary differences as well as potential
international differences owing to previous
learned experiences.
(0-12)( LJER/DG/Researcher)
Stage 2: Research
A phenomenographic approach will be taken to

explore student and staff experiences of the
pedagogic model and the WRAP tool. The
other data

research will also explore the perceptions of the
users (teachers, students and reviewers) after
Transcripts of interviews and
Student authentic assessment
outputs

Peer feedback
the event in relation to authentic assessment

Project blog
and learning. Data will be obtained in both

Report on student perceptions
countries through focus groups, interviews,
personal reflective accounts, feedback and
of the model and tool

other data provided by Web 2.0 resources and
student outputs associated with the project.
Research paper on authentic
assessment

(13-24) (LJER/DG/Researcher)
User input to development of
the self-authoring version of
the WRAP tool
Stage 3: Research
The participants will again be engaged in a

phenomenographic study and the outcomes
used to inform a further iteration of the original
Research data and
transcriptions

Research publications on
Delphi study to determine whether or not the
student-centred authentic
challenges identified in the original study have
assessment.
been mitigated or reduced. (30-36)
(LJER/DG/Researcher)
Stage 1: Resources

Installation and testing of WRAP tool at UW (0-

6) JC/GS
WRAP tool.

Purchase and set-up of eyetracker; staff training
(0-1) GS
Successful installation of the
Successful set-up and testing
of the usability equipment

Recommendations for design
team arising from usability
Usability testing of WRAP tool to establish any
testing.
fundamental design issues needing to be
addressed particularly from an accessibility
aspect (2-10) GS/JC
Stage 2: Resources
Development of self-authoring version of WRAP

Tested version of self-
tool based on feedback from Stage 1 research.
authoring tool for use by
Ongoing input from Stage 2 research will also
students.
inform development. (10-20(JC/GS)
Accessibility and usability testing of selfauthoring tool (20-24)(GS/LJER)
6.
Contributors (Including FTEs)
Professor Lesley-Jane Eales-Reynolds (NTF, Director Westminster Exchange) Project
team lead (with oversight for management) and co-author. As visiting professor has advised
UniSA team and has expertise in Technology-enhanced learning and research-informed
L&T. (0.11FTE).
Dr David Gillham (SL, UniSA, Australia) Designer of WRAP, co-author of project. Expertise
in research-informed teaching in Healthsciences. Co-leader of project trials (0.11FTE).
Mr Peter Ride, (Principal Research Fellow, Westminster). Expert in Museum and Gallery
studies. Co-leader of project trials, co-author. (0.08FTE specific to project, remained is part
of his teaching time)
Professor Gunter Saunders, (Westminster) Director of Technology-Enhanced learning. Coauthor and supporting project implementation. (0.11FTE)
Jackie Cornell (UniSA) WRAP programmer & member of project team (0.2FTE over two
years)
Dr Victoria Walsh, Head of Adult Programmes, Tate Britain Learning Department, Advisor.
(0.05FTE) specialist advisor (as part of UW/Tate Britain collaboration).
Additional Specialist Advisors
Professor Vicki Waye (UniSA) Professor of Law
Dr Judith Guilkers, University of Maastricht, Netherlands. Authentic assessment
7.
Project Budget
Staff
Eales-Reynolds
0.11FTE FIXEDSAL
Saunders 0.11FTE(Prof)
Ride 0.08 FTE(Sen Res
Fellow)
Gillham 0.10FTE(SL)
Cornell 0.2FTE (Tech
support)
Administrator (0.05FTE)
G5
Research Associate
0.4FTE (TBA;REB2429)
Travel & Subsistence for
conferences; project
meetings
Equipment: Tobii
Eyetracker
Funding Requested
YR1
YR2
YR3
Institution Contribution
YR1
YR2
YR3
Total
6914
6217
3841
6914
6217
3841
2964
2665
1646
2964
2665
1646
2964
2664
1646
29634
26646
16461
6000
7643
2882
7643
2882
7643
6000
22929
17764
1500
1500
1500
4500
18792
18792
18792
56,376
2400
3000
5000
10400
20000
Conference fees
Transcription costs
Office running costs &
overheads, (fEC)
6914
6217
3841
10000
30000
1000
2000
3000
1000
1000
1000
3000
14276
14276
14276
18366
Consumables for
500
500
research study
Total
79940 61540
58040
47666
Total Requested
(All costs stated should include VAT where applicable)
18366
18366
97926
1000
37666
34783
319635
199520
8.
Evaluation Strategy
Our evaluation strategy will be based on a modified form of the CIPP model21 already being
used successfully in an ongoing JISC-funded project. A range of methods will be used to
underpin evaluation including questionnaires, 1:1 interviews, focus groups, literature
surveys, contact/discussions with other ongoing/completed projects, project meetings.
The main evaluation stages are outlined in Table 1 and the approach will be closely linked to
the project research studies. Data collected for evaluation purposes will also inform the
research. So for example the Delphi study proposed for stage 1 of the research and the
phenomenographic approach to be taken in stage 2 would include many of the questions
and methods required for an evaluation of the overall success of the project.
Evaluation Part/ Key Questions
1. What needs to be done?
What is the current position in the
partner institutions and wider
community?
2. How should it be done?
What have we learned from the
development of the model and the
WRAP process supporting it
3. Is it being done?
How did the implementation of the
pedagogic model, research and
tool go?
4. Did it succeed?
To what extent have the project’s
aims been met?
9.
Data likely to be collected/measures of success
Cumulative data on student/staff views of their
experiences and perceptions of the pedagogic model.
Captured reflections of what worked well and what
didn’t; lessons the project has learned that can be
taken forward.
Evaluative data about the model, ease of use of the
WRAP tool and perceptions of the value of the
process to students and staff.
Evidence of enthusiastic take-up/integration of the
pedagogic model and tool in the Schools initially
involved and in some other subject areas. Students
who see the value in making use of the authentic
assessments they undertake and who are able to
engage with their tutors and workplace/external
assessors and peers about their assessment outputs.
Details of how students use the feedback captured to
inform their subsequent work.
Dissemination Strategy
The international engagement in this project means that the team are extremely well placed
to ensure multilevel dissemination of its outcomes. The project crosses disciplinary
boundaries and involves experts from a range of organisations, both public and academic.
Specific dissemination strategies include traditional approaches (journals and conferences)
complemented by the use of web 2.0 dissemination. The project will have a website and
news-type blog providing information about the project and enabling a wider input of views.
The project team will engage with national organisations (e.g. Higher Education Academy,
JISC, Australian Learning and Teaching Council and ALT) to increase the breadth of
networking and will contribute to dissemination events specifically on the themes of authentic
assessment and research informed learning and teaching.
Project deliverables for dissemination include:
 Project reports, conference and journal papers and presentations
 The student-centred version of the WRAP tool
 Artefacts developed by students and applicable to the workplace
 Peer review of artefacts
It is likely that student artefacts will have a major impact because of their authoritative
nature, the peer-review process and their online publication. Implementation initially in
museum and gallery studies, health sciences and law will provide artefacts that include
archived works of art, video and audio and will act as exemplars for other disciplines and
professions. As part of the dissemination strategy, staff from specific institutions with
established links to project team members (including John Hopkins University, University of
Ulster, University of Portsmouth, University of Greenwich and University College of Arts at
Bournemouth) will contribute to the peer-review of artefacts.
10.
Risk Management
Risk Analysis
Risk
Prob.* Impact* Score
Students do not
1
5
5
engage with project
Mitigation/Action
Ensure clear statements of advantages.
Fully involve students in design and
evaluation. Integrate pedagogic model
into curriculum delivery so its use is
compulsory.
Pedagogic model
1
5
5
The staged approach will actively
proves too complex for
engage students in development of the
students
pedagogy. It provides an opportunity for
familiarisation. Students will be made
aware of the work in previous years of
the project.
Accessibility/usability
1
5
5
of online tool poor
The project will utilise a Tobii eyetracker
to aid design of online aspects of the
WRAP tool
Reluctance of other
staff to engage at
2
4
8
Ensure information on project, benefits
for staff/students are communicated
Stage 3
early in the project, and throughout.
Build on the stated commitment of the
partner institutions to active, student
centred learning. Ensure progress and
evaluation of pedagogic model are
regularly communicated to staff not
engaged in the process at that stage.
Failure of WRAP tool
2
5
10
Ensure WRAP authoring tool uses
at critical moments in
reliable platform with secure and
the project
workable back up arrangements.
Evaluate online system processes to
establish best practice guidance.
Ensure training and feedback process
includes risk analysis related to system
failure/downtime.
Inability to appoint staff
3
4
12
Expertise spread widely through project
with required skills and
team. Consider internal secondment
difficulty releasing key
with backfill. Recruitment started as
staff from current
soon as funding agreed. Advertise
duties.
through online networks.
Project management
1
4
4
Employ/utilise the extensive project
not carried out
management experience in team using
effectively.
JISC Infonet kit approach. NTF lead
experienced project manager.
Key staff leave
3
3
9
Ensure full understanding of project
across Project Team. Document work
carefully to build recovery resource.
Poor financial
management of project
1
4
4
Robust project management by leader.
Regular reports inform team meetings.
11.
Summary of Benefits
The proposed pedagogic model involves the synthesis of research/experience-derived
knowledge to promote deeper learning and increased self-efficacy in a professional
environment. It will contribute to the fields of research-informed teaching and evidencebased practice and provide evidence about how the pedagogic model supports the
development of higher order cognitive skills, self-efficacy and knowledge creation. The
model will be applicable to a range of disciplines and professions and the self-authoring
version of the tool will allow individual tailoring.
Benefits to students:

Development of higher order cognitive skills giving them confidence in identifying
authoritative materials online.

Integrating their professional knowledge in the creation of peer-reviewed outputs
involving the use of selected, critically appraised, web resources.

Increased motivation through valuing and extending their professional knowledge.

Opportunity to creatively develop artefacts that incorporate contemporary
technologies, underpinned by rigorous academic critique, published online and
subject to expert peer review.

Opportunity for professional advancement as they refine their skills in accessing,
appraising and integrating resources and evidence.
Benefits to HE pedagogy:

Implementation and evaluation of a novel pedagogy focusing on critical appraisal and
synthesis processes used in academia and the workplace.

Generation of data from different disciplines that will contribute to future strategies for
knowledge construction and authentic assessment.

A substantial contribution to the development of research evidence surrounding the
use of online resources and authentic assessment in HE pedagogy.
.
Conclusion
The vast explosion of Web 2.0 resources has not been accompanied by the development of
relevant pedagogic models. This project will evaluate a model which allows students to use
online resources in an informed way, giving them control in the construction of new
University of Westminster
Page 15 of 27
knowledge with the academic acting as facilitator. The project builds on the theory of
authentic assessment and its application to HE pedagogy as well as contributing to our
understanding of relevant pedagogies in the Web 2.0 age. It also provides a powerful model
for developing skills around the learning-research-practice nexus.
Words: 3996
University of Westminster
Page 16 of 27
Appendices
12.
One page Curriculum Vitae for each member of the project team (not included in
the word limit)
University of Westminster
Page 17 of 27
Professor Lesley-Jane Eales-Reynolds BSc, PhD, FIBMS, SFHEA, NTF
Current position:
e-mail:
University Director of Learning and Teaching
l.ealesreynolds@westminster.ac.uk
Experience of leading international activities and successful institutional bid for a Centre for
Excellence in Learning and Teaching -the ExPERT Centre. Responsible for the development
of pedagogic research to meet the strategic aim of research-informed teaching. Responsible
for the development of technology-enhanced and blended learning approaches to curriculum
development and delivery. Extensive experience of substantial research grant and project
financial management. Leader in curriculum and programme development from FdSc to PD.
Extensive experience in student-centred learning using rich, interactive multimedia.
Research Income:
 Discipline-related income as sole or principle investigator - £510,022
 Discipline-related income as co-author or investigator - £283,702
 Teaching and learning related as sole or principle investigator-£5,000,000
Professional roles
Member of the Academic Council and a Director of the Higher Education Academy. Member
of the appointments committee to the Board.Senior Specialist advisor in Clinical Simulation,
MEDEV, Health Subject Centres. Visiting Professor, University of Portsmouth. Chair,
Association of National Teaching Fellows. Member of the National Advisory Panel for the
Individual NTF award. Member of the Senior Fellowship awards committee, HEA. Consultant
to the University of Portsmouth and South Central Strategic Health Authority on Leadership
and Management skills development in the NHS. Consultant to the University of Portsmouth
on evaluation of the impact of the ExPERT Centre.. Consultant to the HSAP subject centre,
Kings, and Bournemouth University on evaluation of the PHORUS project. Consultant to the
HEA– FDTL4, evaluation of Biosciences projects. Consultant to the Open University
Validation Services (Assessment and Quality Assurance)
Selected, relevant publications






Eales-Reynolds, L-J., Clarke,C. (2010) Simulation: an effective tool for the sustained
impact of training interventions. International Journal of Healthcare Quality Assurance
(submitted)
Eales-Reynolds, L-J (2010) Interim Evaluation, PHORUS OER project. Produced for
Health Science and Practice Subject Centre and the HEA.
Eales-Reynolds, LJ & Rugg, E. (2009) Key aspects of developing a culture of quality
teaching within the institution: OECD. www.oecd.org/dataoecd/5
/41/43977642.pdf
Eales-Reynolds, L-J (2008) Multinational Conversation about Roles of SOTL Scholars.
The International Commons, 3(1), 4-5.
Clarke, C and Eales-Reynolds, L-J. (2008) Impact of an educational intervention on
patient care in the NHS – An evaluation report for the NHS Portsmouth Hospitals Trust.
Eales-Reynolds, L-J. (2006) The impact of FDTL4 projects on the Bioscience teaching
and learning sector. Evaluation Report for the Higher Education Academy.
University of Westminster
Page 18 of 27
Professor Gunter Saunders
Current Post
Deputy Director Westminster Exchange and Director of Technology Enhanced Learning at
the University of Westminster with responsibility for development of the use of technology to
enhance learning and teaching. I am the institutional business owner of the virtual learning
environment used by over 1200 staff and 17,000 students.
Research Interests
Since the late 1990s my research has been in the area of e-learning and including the role of
technology in the classroom and most recently the use of Web 2.0 technologies and social
networking to facilitate and enhance the face to face student learning experience.
Recent Research and Development Funding
Currently project Director of 2 JISC Projects (Making Assessment Count 2008 -2010,
Curriculum Delivery Programme, value £200,000; Interactive Work Based learning
Environments 2009-2011, Workforce Development Programme, value £100,000). Project
team member of Promoting Student Web 2.0 Contributions with Lightweight Enterprise RSS,
Institutional Innovation Programme, 2008-2010, value £300,000.
Teaching Experience




Over 15 years experience of teaching Microbial Genetics at both UG and PG levels
Developed a self-directed learning approach with students using paper-based
materials. Have pioneered approaches to hybrid on-campus delivery exploiting
computer based learning tools and the WWW to enhance the face to face experience
Have developed and delivered online (distance) and face to face staff development
courses covering aspects of the use of technology in learning and teaching
Author of 2 books on aspects of online learning on campus (Getting Started with
Online Learning (2000) and Online Learning on Campus (2003)
Recent Publications/conference presentations
Kerrigan MJP, Clements M, Bond A & Saunders G. eReflect - Making Assessment Count
(2009). In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Blended Learning Conference.. ISBN:
978-1-905313-66-2 pp.219-232
Kerrigan MJP, Clements M, Bond A, Oradini F and Saunders G (2009). The use of Web 2.0
technologies to support student feedback and reflection. E-learning 2.0,
http://elearning2-0.ning.com/profile/MarkKerrigan
Saunders, G., Gamble, M., Oradini, F. and Papaefthimiou, M. (2008) Web 2.0: Formal and
Informal Applications for Learning, BbWorld 08, Las Vegas, USA.
Saunders, G. and F.Oradini (2008) Technology enhanced learning in the 21st Century –
supporting the attainment of an old paradigm or developing a new one? Journal of
Leadership and Management in Higher Education, 1, (1) 29-46.
Saunders, G. and Oradini, F. (2008) Social networking: connect-ing students and staff, ALTN, July 2008
University of Westminster
Page 19 of 27
Curriculum Vitae - Dr David Gillham
Contact Details: Phone: 08 8302 2507; Email: David.Gillham@unisa.edu.au
Current Appointment:
Senior Lecturer (Level C), Sansom Institute of Health Service Research and School of
Nursing and Midwifery, University of South Australia
Project Leader Web Resource Appraisal Process (WRAP) Project
Academic Qualifications
2002 PhD (University of South Australia).
1993 Master of Nursing Studies (Deakin University)
1989 Bachelor of Nursing (Sturt College of Advanced Education), (nurse education)
1980 Bachelor of Science (University of Adelaide), (majors-pure and applied mathematics)
Some Recent Books Chapters, Refereed Journal and Refereed Conference
Publications





Gillham, D, McCutcheon H, Deuter K, Holasek A (2009), ‘Locating and appraising the
evidence”,In Using Evidence to Guide Nursing Practice, 2nd edn, eds M Courtney,
H.McCutcheon, Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier, Sydney, pp.77-94.
Smith C, Gillham D. McCutcheon H, Ziaian T (2008) Online simulation: Innovative
strategies to promote student engagement in learning assessment. ATN Assessment
Conference 2008: Engaging Students in Assessment (Nov 2008)
Gillham D, Cornell J (2008) The web resource appraisal process: a novel approach to
online, experiential learning, integrating research, education and practice. Refereed
Conference Proceedings, Teaching and Research, Making the connection in Health
Sciences, University of South Australia, November 2007.
Gillham D, McCutcheon H. Surman D, Cunnew M, Ziaian T (2008) Scenariation: online
learning using tree structured scenarios to simulate clinical decision making Refereed
Conference Proceedings, Teaching and Research, Making the connection in Health
Sciences, University of South Australia, November, 2007
Gillham D, Cornell J (2007) Sharing research evidence: An international online
approach to health sciences education, Virtual Presentation, Third International
Conference, Technology, Knowledge and Society, Cambridge UK, 2007, also published
in the International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society 3 (2): 20-25.
Recent Grants (since 2007)
2007/8 Gillham D, McCutcheon H, Smith C, Ziaian T: Scenariation: Promoting student
engagement within flexible learning environments, UniSA University Teaching: Small
Development Grants. $9,981.92, 2007/8.
2007/8 Leach M, Gillham D: Attitude and use of evidence-based practice amongst
complementary medicine practitioners: a descriptive survey, University of South Australia
Divisional Research Development Grant, $9,997.
Teaching Awards
2009 Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning, UniSA
2007 Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning, UniSA
2007 Quality Teaching Award, UniSA
University of Westminster
Page 20 of 27
13.
Peter Ride: Curriculum Vitae
Contact:
p.e.ride@westminster.ac.uk
EMPLOYMENT
2008 -
Principal Research Fellow, University of Westminster, London, UK
2001-8
Senior Research Fellow & Director, Centre for Arts Research Technology and
Education (CARTE
1998 - 2000
Artistic Director, DA2 Digital Arts Development Agency , Bristol, UK
1995-7
Arts Programme Co-ordinator, Artec (Arts Technology Centre), London, UK
1993-5
Director, Cambridge Darkroom Gallery, Cambridge, UK
1988-3
Manager/Curator, Print Room - The Photographers Gallery , London, UK
1983-7
Assistant Curator, National Museum of Photography, Film and TV, Bradford,UK
EDUCATION
1977 – 1981 BA Hons, Modern History: Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
PUBLICATIONS AND PRACTICE
[Note: as a practiced based researcher my RAE rated outputs ‘publications’ are primarily
in the form of curated international exhibitions]
Exhibitions curated (selected):
2008
David Rokeby Plotting Against Time Art Gallery of Windsor, Ontario, Canada
2007
Group show, Outlook Accumulated Oakville Gallery, Ontario Canada
2007
Artists retrospective David Rokeby Silicon Remembers Carbon, FACT, Liverpool and
CCA Glasgow
2006
Group show, Timeless: Time Landscape and New Media, Images Festival, Toronto,
2000-03 Luke Jerram, Tide, At-Bristol, Bristol and Cornerhouse, Manchester 2001; Talin, Estonia
2002; Rotterdam, 2003
2000
Lyndal Jones Demonstrations and Details from the Facts of Life interactive video
installation, Ikon Gallery, Birmingham
2000
Nick Crowe Discrete Packets, ICA London and San Francisco Museum of Mod Art
2000
Luke Jeram, Lunacy, installation measuring gravitational force of the moon, Plymouth Arts
Centre and At Bristol science centre
Some Recent, Relevant Publications:
2010
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
Chapter: ‘Press Enter’ in The Go Between, University of Cardiff, 2009
(edited) Online catalogue, David Rokeby Silicon Remembers Carbon 2007
(co-authored) Andrew Dewdney and Peter Ride, The New Media Handbook, Routledge,
2006
‘Playing With Time’ essay in Jonathan Shaw (re) collect, Pavilion, 2005
Essay in Grace Weir A Fine Line catalogue and CDROM, Cornerhouse, 2004
“Revealling All’, Interaction: Systems, Practice and Theory, University of Technology,
Sydney, November 2004
Chapter: Jane Prophet & Peter Ride ‘The nature of collaboration – about, around and
beyond stem cell research’ in Wonderful, NESTA, 2003
University of Westminster
Page 21 of 27
Dr Victoria Walsh
Address:
Telephone:
Tate Britain, Millbank, London SW1P 4RG
+ 44 207 887 8062
Education
Ph.D: Oxford Brookes University, History of Art (1995)
MA: Royal College of Art, Visual Arts Administration: Curating and Commissioning
Contemporary Art (1994)
MA: Courtauld Institute of Art, 19th Century Art and Institutions (1989)
Selected work:
June 05 - present
Jan 03-Jan 04
Feb 03 -Mar 05
Jan -May 03
Sep 01 - Sep 02
Aug 99- Jun 00
1993
1992
Head of Adult Programmes, Tate Britain Learning Department
Acting Head of National Programmes, Tate
Curatorial Consultant - Feliks Topolski: Memoir of the 20th Century,
South Bank
Project Co-ordinator, 4th Plinth Project, Greater London Authority
Curator, ‘Nigel Henderson: Parallel of Life and Art', UK touring
exhibition
Launch Organiser of Tate Modern and Tate Britain
Nov 94 - Mar '95
Architecture Competition Organiser for Tate
Modern, Tate Gallery
Freelance lecturing Camberwell School of Art, London
Part-time lecturer and examiner Oxford Polytechnic, Department of
Art History
Research Experience
2007-10
2009 –
2003- 04
Co-investigator, AHRC funded project, Tate Encounters; Doctoral Cosupervisor, AHRC CDA, ‘Vision and Patronage: Tate Modern
Co-investigator, Art School Educated, Research project, Leverhulme funded
Research Consultant, Enterprise Cities, London School of Economics,
Report into Creativity in Museums and Galleries for National Museum
Directors’ Conference
Publications
Walsh, V. (2010) ‘Francis Bacon and the Aesthetic of Ambiguity’, Journal of Visual Culture in
Britain
Walsh,V. (2009) ‘Real Imagination is Technical Imagination;, Francis Bacon, Tate Publishing
Walsh,V (2002) ‘Take Two: Gilbert & George’, 20th century British Sculpture, Henry Moore
Institute
Walsh,V (2001) Nigel Henderson: Parallel of Life & Art, Thames & Hudson
University of Westminster
Page 22 of 27
JACQUELINE CORNELL
17 Hutton Street, Klemzig, South Australia 5087
0404 650 562, Jacqueline.Cornell@hotmail.com
EDUCATION
1996 – 2001
1985 – 1987
1982 – 1985
University of Northumbria at Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
BSc Second Class Honours (Upper Division) [2:1] in Computing for
Business
Dissertation: Creating interactive vector graphics on a web site
Walsall Technical College, West Midlands, UK
Business & Technician Education Council (BTEC) Ordinary National
Certificate (ONC) in Business Studies
Great Wyrley High School, West Midlands, UK
9 O’Levels and Royal Society of Arts (RSA) Stage I Typewriting
EXPERIENCE
Feb 2009 – Present
Research Assistant – Web Resource Appraisal Project (WRAP) School of Nursing &
Midwifery, UniSA, Adelaide, Australia
Analyse, design, create and maintain the WRAP software (currently health and law
versions). Collaborate with project team members and negotiate with collaborating partners
Joint developer of the WRAP tool, a successful web based application for evidence based
practice.
Jun 2005 – Present
Academic Support Officer, School of Nursing & Midwifery, UniSA, Adelaide, Australia
PUBLICATIONS
Refereed Journal Publication
 Gillham D Cornell J (2007) Sharing research evidence: An international online
approach to health sciences education, Virtual Presentation, Third International
Conference, Technology, Knowledge and Society, Cambridge UK, 2007, also
published in the International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society 3 (2):
20-25.
Conference Presentation, Refereed Paper
 Gillham D, Cornell J (2008) The web resource appraisal process: a novel approach to
online, experiential learning, integrating research, education and practice. Refereed
Conference Proceedings, Teaching and Research, Making the connection in Health
Sciences, University of South Australia, November 2007.
 Gillham D, Cornell J, McCutcheon H (2008) The web resource appraisal process
(WRAP) stage 3: An experiential learning approach merging practice knowledge with
research evidence. Refereed Conference Proceedings, Teaching and Research,
Making the connection in Health Sciences, University of South Australia, November,
2007.
University of Westminster
Page 23 of 27
Curriculum Vitae – Judith Gulikers
Present postal address:
Department of Education and Competence Studies,
Wageningen University, PO Box 8130, 6700 EW Wageningen
Key Qualifications/ Fields of expertise



VWO (Pre-university secondary education) Jeanne d’arc College Maastricht, the
Netherlands
MA Cognitive/Educational Psychology at the University of Maastricht, the Netherlands.
PhD Educational Technology Expertise Centre of the Open University of the Netherlands
Research and consultancy in the field of authentic assessment / competence-based
assessment in the context of different educational levels
Summary of work experience
2006 – present
Senior researcher on Competence-based assessment in agricultural
education, Wageningen University, Department of Education and
Competence Studies
2002 – 2006
PhD. Dissertation “Authenticity is in the eye of the beholder. Beliefs and
perceptions of authentic assessment and the influence on student
learing, Open University, Educational Technology Expertise Centre
Heerlen, the Netherlands
PhD best paper award – European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction
(EARLI). Special Interest Group Assessment conference.
Key publications
Gulikers, J. T., M., Baartman, L. K., J., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2010). Facilitating evaluations of
innovative, competence-based assessments: creating understanding and involving
multiple stakeholders. Evaluation and Program Planning, 33(2), 120-127
Gulikers, J. T., M., Biemans, H. Mulder, M. (2009). Developer, teacher, student, and
employer evaluations of competence-based assessment quality. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 35, 110-119.
Mulder, M., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H. & Wesselink, R. (2009) The new competence concept
in higher education: error or enrichment? Journal of European Industrial Training, 33(8/9),
755-770
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, Th. J., Kirschner, P. A., & Kester, L. (2008). Authenticity is in
the Eye of the Beholder: Student and Teacher Perceptions of Assessment Authenticity.
Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 60(4), 401-412.
Gulikers, J. T. M., Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Bastiaens, Th. J. (2008). The effect of
practical experience on perceptions of assessment authenticity, study approach, and
learning outcome. Learning and Instruction, 18, 172-186.
Gulikers, J. T. M., Bastiaens, Th. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2004). A five-dimensional framework
for authentic assessment. Educational Technology Research & Development, 52, 67-85.
University of Westminster
Page 24 of 27
Professor Vicki Waye
Professor of Law
School/Unit:
, Division/Portfolio, Division of Business
School of Law
Contact Details: Telephone:+61 8 830 27126
Email: Vicki.Waye@unisa.edu.au
Professor Waye joins the University of South Australia after 20 years of teaching and
research experience at the Law School, University of Adelaide at the undergraduate and
postgraduate levels. Professor Waye's teaching expertise includes Arbitration Law (both
domestic and international), Evidence and Procedure, Corporate Law, Contract Law and
Wine Law.
In addition to teaching and researching at the University of Adelaide, Professor Waye has
also taught and or undertaken research at the University of Auckland, the University of
Zimbabwe, the University of Cape Town, University College Dublin, the University of
Oregon, the University of New South Wales Graduate School of Management, and has
taught summer school in Adelaide for William & Mary College. Outside of University,
Professor Waye has also provided educational services to the South Australian Chamber of
Commerce and the South Australian Workcover Corporation.
Qualifications
1983: Bachelor of Laws (Hons), University of Adelaide conferred. Graduate Diploma of Legal
Studies, Sotuh Australian Institute of technology.
1984: Graduate Diploma of legal Practice conferred.
1987/1988: L.L.M, University of Adelaide, by course work. Conferred May 1989.
2002-2006: PhD, University of Sydney, conferred May 2007.
A selection of Research Publications
"Who are Judges Writing For?" (2009) 34 University of Western Australia Law Review 274
"The Dawning of the Age of the Litigation Entrepreneur" (2009) 28 Civil Justice Quarterly
389 (with Vince Morabito)
Trading in Legal Claims: Law, Policy and Future Directions in Australia, UK & US (Presidian
2008) pp298
"Carbon Footprints, Food Miles and the Australian Wine Industry" (2008) 9 Melbourne
Journal of International Law 271
“Conflicts of Interest between Claimholders, Lawyers and Litigation Entrepreneurs” (2007)
19 Bond Law Review 225
A Guide to Arbitration Practice in Australia (2nd ed) pp713 University of Adelaide and
Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia, 2006
“Mulitlateral and Bilateral Agreements and Geographical Indications” (2005) 15 Currents:
International Trade Law Journal 56
‘”Australia and the United States: Two Common Criminal Justice Systems Uncommonly at
Odds” (with Paul Marcus) (2004) 12 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 27
“Judicial Fact-Finding: Trial by Judge Alone in Serious Criminal Cases” (2003) 27 Melb Uni
Law R 423
Australian Studies in Law: Administrative Law (ed with MC Harris) pp 276 Federation Press
1991.
University of Westminster
Page 25 of 27
14.
References (not included in the word limit)
1. Modritscher,F & Spiel,SD. (2006) Assessment in E-Learning Environments: A Comparison
of three Methods.
http://www.moedritscher.com/papers/paper_moedritscher_et_al_eassessment_2006.pdf
2. Mayes,T., & de Freitas,S. (2007) Learning and e-learning: the role of theory. In:
Rethinking pedagogic for a digital age. Eds: H. Beetham & R. Sharpe. Routledge, ISBN-13:
978-0415408745
3. Learning Space http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/ Last accessed, September 20th, 2009
4. LOREnet
http://www.surffoundation.nl/en/themas/elearning/onderwijsrepositorieslorenet/Pages/Default
.aspx Last accessed, September 20th, 2009
5. Acro http://www.cds-web.net/acro_index.html Last accessed, September 20th, 2009.
6. Biggs,J. (1996) Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education,
32, 347–364.
7. Savery,J & Duffy,T (1995) Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its
constructivist framework. Educations Technology 35; 31-38
8. Birenbaum,M & Dochy,FJRC (1996) Alternatives in assessment of achievemens, learning
processes and prior knowledge. Boston, MS : Kluwer Academic Purbishers.
9. Darling-Hammond,L & Snyder,J (2000). Authentic assessment in teaching in context.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 523-545
10. Herrington J, & Herrington A (1998) Authentic assessment and multimedia. How
university students respond to a model of authentic assessment. Higher Educational
Research and Development, 17(3), 385-322.
11. Gulikers, J.T.M.; Bastiaens, Th.J.; Kirschner, P.A. (2007) Defining authentic
assessment: five dimensions of authenticity. In: Balancing dilemmas in assessment and
learning in contemporary education / Havnes, A., McDowell, L. Routledge, New York,
12. Brand-Gruwela,S Wopereisa I Vermettenb Y (2005) The Pedagogical Use of Information
and Communication Technology in Education: A Dutch Perspective
University of Westminster
Page 26 of 27
Computers in Human Behaviour, 21(3); 487-508
13. Cochrane http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/ Last accessed, September 23th, 2009
14. Wikipedia – museum studies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Museum_studies Last
accessed, September 20th, 2009
15. Vads http://www.vads.ac.uk/ Last accessed, September 20th, 2009
16. Vygotsky, LS. (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge MA. Harvard University Press.
17. Lave, S & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge Uk. Cambridge University Press.
18. Bruner,JS. (1961) The Act of Discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31; 21-32.
19. Leont’ev,A. (1974) The problem of the Development of activity in psychology. Soviet
Psychology, 13(2); 4-33.
20. Gagne,R., Briggs,LJ.,Wagner,W. (1992) Principles of instructional design. 4th Edn. Fort
Worth Texas. Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
21. Stufflebeam, DL. (2006) The CIPP model for evaluation. In: Evaluation Models 2nd. Edn.
Eds: Daniel L. Stufflebeam, George F. Madaus and Thomas Kellaghan. Springer,
Netherlands. pp279-317.
University of Westminster
Page 27 of 27