At the request of DG Research we have agreed a new list of deliverables, now condensed to 30 items. The original list is now redescribed as a list of 'products', and the new format reflects a desire to have a more manageable number of transactions between the project and DGR.
4a, 4b, 6a, 7a, 9a
subtotal 7 in year 1
4c, 5a, 6b, 7b, 8a, 8b, 10a
5b, 6c, 7c, 8c, 9b, 10b
subtotal 13 in year 2
3b, 6d, 7d, 10c
2b, 3c, 4d, 6e, 9c, 10d
subtotal 10 in year 3
This page also describes some of the qualities which we would like S-TEAM deliverables to have. Some will only apply to one kind of output, e.g. training packages, whilst others apply to everything.
Common qualities for all deliverables
The deliverable must conform to the S-TEAM visual identity, including
- Specified colour scheme (soon to be made available here)
- Use of the S-TEAM, FP7 and EU logos, (click here for the combined logo)
- Acknowledgement of FP7 funding, e.g. "This project is funded by the EU Framework 7 Programme, contract no 234870"
- Publication details (there is an annoying tendency for official reports etc not to have the date & place of publication). We will provide a standard format for this as soon as possible.
- Fonts and headings as per S-TEAM guidelines (to be agreed, but Arial is probably the font to use for the moment)
Part of the role of WP10 is to assist with finalising deliverables and their appearance etc, so no need to worry unduly about doing it all yourself.
Training packages will normally be available either as packs of hardcopy documentary material or as online resources, or both. Training packages, course units or modules are defined as a coherent set of materials, designed for a specific audience and with a specific theme or subject area. A package will have a defined timeframe (e.g. one day, two weeks, over a semester) and will have stated learning outcomes related to some form of measurement or accreditation.
In the case of S-TEAM training packages, there will be criteria which each package must fulfil to be accepted as a deliverable, such as: ♦
- It must be piloted, reviewed and approved by practising teachers and/or teacher educators (as appropriate)
- It must be accessible to its target audience in terms of language and its visual or other forms of presentation
- It must be directly relevant to science teaching, including the specific methods addressed by the project and specified in the Call
- It must specify who (in general) will deliver the training, the timescale and the expected learning outcomes for participants.
The above criteria probably need some further description.
The first point - need for review - can be addressed by the reference group, but it is important that we don't get too reliant on this group given that they can't be expected to review everything. Therefore there should be arrangements in place for local review. For most partners, their involvement in teacher education should provide contacts for this, e.g. teachers in partner schools or other local networks.
The second point - accessibility - will be checked within WP10 before items are submitted as deliverables, but the main intention of this point was to avoid producing dense texts, full of academic language and unnecessary technical vocabulary.
The third point is very important - given the diversity of research interests represented by the partners, it would not be surprising if some of the products focused on specialised aspects of science teaching without reference to the wider field of 'inquiry' which we are supposed to be promoting. Even if this means making critical references to 'inquiry' and its variants, we need to keep inquiry at the forefront of what we are doing.
The fourth point is relatively easy to deal with - it simply means being specific about the details.