There will be two E-Learning Advisory Group calls in December to fit in with the availability of people in different timezones. The agenda of these meetings will be identical so there is no expectation of people attending both sessions.
Date 09:00-10:00 UTC (M1)
and 21:00-22:00 UTC (M2)
Please follow the links on the times above to see the times in your timezone.
GoToMeeting Details
Click here to see GoToMeeting joining information
Click here to see GoToMeeting recordings (ELAG members only)
Goals
- Report on progress of E-Learning delivery and maintenance
- Report and discuss plans for moves towards
- More flexible course progress options
- Open access courses an alternative study pathways
- Crash course for developers
- Additional E-Learning materials
- April 2017 meeting - initial planning and proposals on duration
Attendees
- Chair: David Markwell
- Member representatives: M1: and M2: Expert members: M1:
- M1: Erika Ericsson (Sweden), Fernando Portilla (Uruguay), Ian Spiers (UK), Pim Volkert (The Netherlands), Avanti Joshi
- M2: Andrew Grant (Canada), Aleksandar Zivaljevic (NZ)
- Expert members: Supten Sarbadhikari and M2:
Staff: M1:
, and M2:Linda Bird, Cathy Richardson, Louise Jones, Liara Tutina, Anne Højen
M2: Jon Zammit, Mike Bainbridge
Apologies
Observers
M1: Mikael Nyström (Linköping University), Manisha Mantri (India)
M2: Andrew Perry (UK)
Agenda and Meeting Notes
Note on agenda item timing
| Item | Description | Owner | Agenda Notes | Meeting Notes |
|---|
| (from M1 09:00 UTC meeting) | Meeting Notes (from M2 21:00 UTC meeting) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Welcome, introductions and apologies | ELAG meetings will be recorded and recordings will be accessible to ELAG members. | Note regarding recordings of this meeting. To minimize duplication of content on the part of the second meeting from the start of the discussion of item 4.1 was recorded. | ||
| 2 | Conflicts of interest | Refer to Conflicts of interest section in the Advisory Groups Manual. | Reminder that all ELAG Member are required to add, update or at least check and re-date their record of interest in the Declaration of Interests table. | ||
| 3 | Update from Team | Brief updates on any key points including, intakes, successful completion and course feedback.
| Foundation course status We have moved to self-enrolment on the Foundation course, which means that people can now start the Foundation course immediately after registration. 22 % of people registering never start watching the presentations. With the new self-enrolment process we expect this figure to drop, because people can start to watch the presentations as soon as they have the need, the time, the motivation etc. Implementation course Increased capacity within the e-learning team means that everyone who has applied for the Implementation course, and have not yet been enrolled, can start in January (or be deferred to the may intake if they want). This means that we will soon have a zero-backlog for the course, which we wish to keep. This is realistic with the current number of applications and with the internal capacity. Course stats. We have a completion rate of about 50%. About 20 % have withdrawn, about 10 % are deferred, 20 % are active continuing. Content course: For the Content course we also have increased our capacity. An external contractor has been trained to do the content course webinars, so she will do about the ⅔ of the webinars. So, here we are also able to achieve a zero-backlog, meaning that students will be enrolled in the following intake. Completion stats (3 intakes of three month duration) Completion rate of 64 %, 15 % withdrawn, 8 % deferrals and 13 % are due to complete. | ||
| 4 | ELAG Work Plan | - | See subtopics below - note change in running order ... | ||
| 4.1 | MAIN TOPIC FOR |
|
| Re-branding: Some changes are necessary in the existing e-learning material because of the re-branding to SNOMED International. We will add the new logo and adjust the e-learning template to use the new name and logo. (we have about 100 presentations to update) We will retain the scripts and recording to mention IHTSDO, but we will make cover-notes to clarify. Open access and learning pathways: The work on Open access will be a key focus in the beginning of the next year. We have been working on providing an overview of the different learning pathways. We are working on a more use case driven approach to design the content of the learning pathways… Our point of departure is to design the learning pathways for programmers to accommodate the request for a crash course for implementers. We are currently categorising the presentations, so that some presentations are relevant for programmers in general, and other presentations are relevant for those programming analytics features, supporting mappings and potentially other tasks.
Manisha expressed that she is happy about our approach. She will take a closer look, but it looks useful. Pim suggested that we test/evaluate our approach with actual programmer, to ensure that the content within a pathway suits their needs. David encouraged the attendees to help us with this. The e-learning team is interested in getting the feedback from members, so we hope that ELAG members can share and discuss the overview (google sheet) with relevant stakeholders and then report back to us. Manisha mentioned that it is important to include practical examples and use cases. David responded that the e-learning team have talked about adding the practical examples (e.g. database demo, tooling demo etc.). Our idea is to record these demonstrations and add these to our repository of material. in future these can be recommended for specific learning pathways Avanti suggested that we also recorded the webinars, or make videos of webinars would, because the demonstrations and the content of those are very valuable. Discussion about prerequisites for accessing an e-learning pathway Ian Spiers suggested to use the foundation course as a baseline for getting access to the learning pathways. So, before people do the pathways they should have taken the foundation course. David responded that this approach maybe conflicts with people that wants to go to the detailed stuff very quickly. And it also conflicts with what has previously been stated. We welcome further thoughts on this! Avanti agreed with Ian that there should be some basic understanding before doing a pathway. David presented the discussion we have had in the team about this topic. We have discussed to add some foundational presentations which is relevant for a specific pathway in the actual pathway. this will ensure that the people doing a certain pathway will take the required foundation presentations related to this topic before taking the advanced presentations. But maybe they will be allowed to skip the basic presentations if they want. We will discuss this topic further internally, and maybe initiate a discussion about this on the ELAG space. Supten suggested to simply make some written guidance to help users find more foundation material or more advances material, dependent on whether the actual presentation was too hard or too easy. | Open access and learning pathways: Andrew Perry - concerns about whether a two day crash course for programmers is really possible. DMA said current filtered set in spreadsheet is already longer than 2 days (16 hours) course. Andrew then asked if there is there scope for absolute core course? Mike Bainbridge - vendors vs. users? Are we seeing vendors in the course? Pointed out that one vendor sent entire department on course and experienced good results in doing so. DMA said we see vendors on the course, we have some data on this but need to reanalyze this. Difficult to know if some vendor staff are taking course for their own interest or prompted by organization. Acknowledgment that many people, new to SCT, are taking our courses. Alek - Regarding strategy. For mass use, who is the target segment? Who's taking the course? Where are the gaps? DMA noted that we also create and provide documentation. In terms of course development, we started with generic segregation (Foundation, Implementation, etc) Our long term vision has always been been for more segmented approach. Alek: Advised on segmentation to start with: vendors and clinical DMA: takeaway revisit analysis of those taking the course (what kind of users) | |||
| 4.2 | National Priorities/Activities (WP4) |
| UK Ian Spiers reported on the current initiatives in the UK. They are in the process of developing new educational material in the form of short video clips. Trying to engage people in 2-3 minutes. Also looking at e-learning material for undergraduates - to start educating people about SNOMED CT on that level as well. Uruguay Fernando reported on the current initiatives in Uruguay: They are doing workshops. At a university (faculty of medical records) there is now a formal course on SNOMED CT for people that do recording. They learn the basics on SNOMED CT, and there is also a practical part where they use browsers, do searching etc. It was a good experience. | NZ Alex - in New Zealand, we see the universities as one of our primary opportunities, but at present, the lecturers are not trained in SNOMED CT. So how do we engage them and make them change champions? DMA: We have to leave the communications between the NRCs and the Universities We do have a mechanism for sharing information through ELAG i.e. can provide material to use in institutions
| |
| 4.3 | Supporting Delivery (WP1) |
| |||
| 4.4 | Supporting Sharing (WP3) |
| No update to report on the Spanish translation of the implementation course. DMA will check with Alejandro Mauro. Document migration and future documents We talked about the ongoing document migration process, and the current work on the practical guide to Refsets. The guide will become available before the new year and we invite you all to read it and provide feedback. Related to the refset guide Ian said that there is a need for documentation about what to do if a refset is deleted. We will add material about this to the new refset guide. David added, that this also relates to documenting some overall considerations related to the maintenance of extensions. This will be a relevant item for future work. David presented the idea of developing new material that looks at the concept model from an implementation perspective. There is a significant gap in the current documentation about how to use the hierarchies - not for authoring - but as part of an implementation. | Alex NZ - what exactly can be shared? DMA showed course outlines available here: E-Learning Course Outlines Clarified process: We want to prevent the distribution of out of date material So to limit this, we share with one person per country That person tracks where it's being used. etc | |
| 5 | Future meeting dates/times |
| April meeting in London. Provisionally, we will have asked for a full-day session. This will allow for a formal meeting, but with time for a more active, practical part. Pim suggested a workshop like we did last year. This is useful if there are topics that are relevant for the whole group to discuss, or do actual work that will contribute to the e-learning activities. | Regarding attendance of meeting in London: Two Members on this call are unlikely to attend. Andrew Grant unsure if Linda Parisien (Canada) will attend Alek not likely to be funded for travel to Europe | |
| 6 | Any other business | Notify before meeting |
|
Meeting Files
| Attachments |
|---|