1 / 22

Overview

gault
Download Presentation

Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RAMS Overview: An update on the research workflow toolJames DalzielProfessor of Learning Technology, and Director, Macquarie E-Learning Centre Of Excellence (MELCOE)Macquarie Universityjames@melcoe.mq.edu.auwww.melcoe.mq.edu.auPresentation for 2007 European LAMS Conference, July 5th, 2007

  2. Overview • Introducing RAMS • Sample eResearch Activityflow Use Cases • Rationale for RAMS • Progress to date • New features • Sakai integration • Areas for future consideration • Challenges of RQF assessment

  3. Introducing RAMS • The “Research Activity Management System” (RAMS) builds on the LAMS V2 workflow core (+ new eResearch features) • A suite of activity tools appropriate for group-based eResearch human workflows • Including multi-purpose tools that apply across eLearning and eResearch • The result is two different domain-specific applications (LAMS for eLearning; RAMS for eResearch) that draw on a common workflow core • Everything is open source

  4. Introducing RAMS Teachers Researchers LAMS Application RAMS Application eLearning specific tools Multi-purpose tools eResearch specific tools “Education Workflow Engine” (LAMS core + new RAMS development) Admin Author Monitor Participant

  5. As RAMS evolves… Teachers Researchers LAMS Application RAMS Application eLearning specific tools Multi-purpose tools eResearch specific tools New tool features for eResearch New tool features for eResearch “Education Workflow Engine” (LAMS core + new RAMS development) Admin Author Monitor Participant

  6. Sample eResearch Activityflow Use Cases High level use cases from RAMP proposal: • Managing the research enterprise lifecycle (from grant planning to grant submission, to project initiation, to project lifecycle management, to research outcome dissemination), • Implementing auditable evaluation processes for assessing research quality (RQF assessor workflows, journal/conference peer review management, etc), • Designing and tracking article submission processes for Institutional Repositories, • Flexibly configuring and running online research collaboration processes (such as staged collaborative analysis and discussion for PhD/Postdocs around raw data, leading to interpretation, visualisation, and ultimately publications), and • Process-oriented research data collection from human subjects (such as in the humanities, and social and cognitive sciences).

  7. Use case 3: Institutional Repository submission workflow

  8. Use case 2: RQF assessor evaluation process

  9. Use case 4: Example of weekly research group meeting

  10. Use case 4a: Alternative example of weekly research group meeting

  11. Rationale for RAMS • Greater standardisation of common or repeatable research processes, leading to higher quality outcomes and improved efficiency; • The ability to share descriptions of common research processes both within institutions, and between institutions – including the ability to adapt and localise shared research processes; • Greatly improved accountability and audit for processes involving multiple actors across multiple steps – such as for research assessment (eg, RQF assessor workflows), as well as for research itself (eg, as a deterrent to academic fraud); and • Providing a process-oriented checklist to ensure the ordered completion of relevant research tasks.

  12. Progress to date • Development of RAMS: activity tools + core additions • Done: Basic RAMS release, RAMS skin, “Live Edit”, Participants as Monitors • Coming in second half of 2007 (V2.1): Initial branching, conditionality, grouping, tool data in/out Contributed to • JISC Human Workflow meeting in UK on July 3rd • Ramscommunity.org website ready to launch as basis for sharing RAMS designs and discussion of issues • Sakai 2.3/2.4 integration available (same as LAMS) • Mid-way through workflow theory review • Looks like LAMS/RAMS breaks significant new group, no really comparable system/specification found to date • Key difference is that in LAMS/RAMS *groups of people* travel through the workflow, not data/processes

  13. New RAMS Features: Default assumption is all Participants are also Monitors

  14. New RAMS Features: Live Edit (starting with running sequence in Monitor)

  15. New RAMS Features: Open live sequence in special author mode (some locked)

  16. New RAMS Features: Can change sequence structure/tools for those not locked

  17. New RAMS Features: Live sequence is immediately updated for current users

  18. Areas for future consideration • Areas considered (but not yet under development) • New “Welcome” page based on researcher workspace for all eResearch workflows • Include “current status” information for all workflows • Allow system-launched sequences (eg, repository submission workflow) • Investigating sequence aggregation, hierarchies and linking • Investigating (actionable) roles for RAMS tools, including multiple roles across multiple actors with differential impact on different tools • Investigating challenging “what constitutes task completion” issues (easy for single user, hard for groups)

  19. Challenges of RQF assessment • Consider the following version of the RAE/RQF assessment workflow: • Step 1: Academic submits articles for assessment; assessors (including assessor manager) can then view articles • Step 2: Assessors (including assessor manager) discuss quality of articles (eg, chat, forum or “offline”) • Step 3: Assessors (including assessor manager) provide overall rating of academic’s quality and impact; assessor manager then finalises an overall score for quality and impact based on prior discussion and review of ratings from all assessors; at a later stage, the scores can be made viewable by the academic

  20. Challenges of RQF assessment Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Submit Discuss Rate Simple?

  21. Challenges of RQF assessment Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Academic Role Submit No task View View View View Assessor Role View View View View Discuss Rate Assessor Manager View Discuss Rate & Finalise ? ? ? ? ? (System)

  22. Challenges of RQF assessment • Some problems to solve • How to design tools to allow for actionable roles without the system becoming unworkably complex for non-technical users? • How does the system handle multiple actors within and across different roles? • What constitutes task completion in group workflows? • How does the system know to notify assessors that articles have been submitted? • How does the system know that the discussion is finished and the rating has begun? • How does the system know to notify the academic that their rating is now viewable?

More Related