F S K N Phase I Program Evaluation 03 03 10

FSKN Phase I Program Evaluation

Spring

Authors Dr. Christine Geith Dr. Leslie Bourquin Karen Vignare

External Evaluator Dr. Flora McMartin

Formative Feedback and Recommendations for Phase II

FSKN Phase I Program Evaluation 2010

2

Michigan State University

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Building Open Educational Resources to Support Learners in Food Safety through Industry University Collaboration................................................................................................................................................. 6

1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 6

2.0 Food Safety Knowledge Network (FSKN) ............................................................................................ 6

2.1 Building the FSKN Pilot Group and Supporting Documents ........................................................... 6

2.2 Developing FSKN Curriculum Materials .......................................................................................... 8

2.3 Creating Processes for OER Development ...................................................................................... 9

2.5 Using OER in the Food Industry (Corporations) ............................................................................ 10

2.4 Challenges in Implementing OER in a Corporate Setting .............................................................. 10

3.0 FSKN Pilot Trainings .......................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Chennai, India – September 2009 ................................................................................................. 11

3.2 India August 2009 – January 2010 ................................................................................................ 11

3.3 Cairo, Egypt – November 2009 ..................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Shanghai, China – December 2009 ............................................................................................... 12

3.5 Overall Summary ........................................................................................................................... 12

4.0 OER Support Technology .................................................................................................................. 12

5.0 Findings and Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 13

5.1 Project Management Observations and Recommendations ........................................................ 13

5.2 External Evaluator’s Observations and Recommendations .......................................................... 15

5.3 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 18

Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 19

A. Timeline of Meetings .......................................................................................................................... 19

B. Basic Level Competency Framework .................................................................................................. 20

C. Inventory of FSKN Resources .............................................................................................................. 30

By Topic | English ................................................................................................................................ 30

By Topic | Chinese .............................................................................................................................. 31

By Event | Pilot Programs ................................................................................................................... 31

By Event | Coca‐Cola Food Safety Conference (December 2009) ...................................................... 32


3


D. OER Policy & Procedures and FSKN Toolkit ........................................................................................ 33

1. Michigan State University Open Educational Resources (OER) Policy & Procedures ..................... 33

2. Food Safety Knowledge Network (FSKN) Toolkit ............................................................................ 37

E. DC Roundtable Forum Attendees ....................................................................................................... 39

F. Status Update on Pilot Projects – February 2010 ............................................................................... 45

Chennai, India – September 2009 ....................................................................................................... 45

India Online Pilot – August 2009 – January 2010 ............................................................................... 46

Cairo, Egypt – November 2009 ........................................................................................................... 46

Shanghai, China – December 2009 ..................................................................................................... 47

G. OER Technology .................................................................................................................................. 48

1. Review of the FSKN Correlate Module ............................................................................................ 48

2. Integrating DiscoverEd with: Software Specification Document Draft 0.5 ..................................... 49

H. Logic Model and Program Charts ....................................................................................................... 54

FSKN Phase I Logic Model ................................................................................................................... 54

Overall Initiative Program Chart ......................................................................................................... 55

Phase I Planning Grant Program Chart ............................................................................................... 56


4


Executive Summary This report summarizes the experiences and progress made during the Food Safety Knowledge Network (FSKN) planning grant period. The findings and recommendations herein are based on data collected over the course of the grant period (November 2008 – January 2010), including evaluation reports of the project activities (attached as appendixes to this document), formative evaluation of the planning process and outcomes as conducted by the project PIs and staff, as well as observations from the external evaluator.

The purpose of the planning grant was to create an international network of people and resources within the food industry to enable and support the development of industry‐led Open Educational Resource (OER) for members of the Food Safety Knowledge Network. Led by a collaboration between Michigan State University (MSU) and the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), the resulting OER and FSKN will be the basis for the creation and provision of high‐quality, low‐cost training and education around issues associated with food safety for developing countries.

The funded activities can be grouped around collaboration between university and industry support for FSKN, development of OER materials, and development of a competency‐based OER delivery platform. While collaboration is critical for building support and awareness, there must be clear, consistent, and constant communications to keep the partnership moving forward with stated goals. Developing materials to support FSKN was similar to other curriculum efforts, but making OER policies, procedures, and licensing understandable to corporate partners required creating documentation and having knowledgeable staff to answer questions. The OER platform used the principles of open source and built on work from the Creative Commons DiscoverEd project to provide content resources organized by topic and competency.

The following were outputs of the planning grant:

Competencies

• 14 requirement areas

• 90 competency objectives

• 264 assessment questions

Resources

• 13 topic areas covered

• 8 different file output types

• 3 languages (English, Chinese, Arabic)

• 200+ individual outputs

• 6 partnerships with content providing organizations


5


Pilots

• 5 pilot trainings (1 still in progress)

• 320+ total pilot participants

• 66 participating companies

Media

• FSKN Website‐ http://www.foodsafetyknowledgenetwork.org

OER Documentation and Software Code

• 2 source codes and documentations (FSKN DiscoverEd and Drupal Correlate Module)

• 1 OER toolkit for potential content partners

• 1 OER policy/procedure form (for MSU)

Meetings and Presentations

• 1 roundtable forum

• 4 FSKN Technical Working Group meetings

• 4 FSKN Competency Subgroup meetings

• 2 informal planning meetings

• 5 conference presentations

http://www.foodsafetyknowledgenetwork.org/


6


Building Open Educational Resources to Support Learners in Food Safety through Industry University Collaboration

1.0 Introduction This report summarizes the experiences and progress made during the Food Safety Knowledge Network (FSKN) planning grant period. The findings and recommendations herein are based on data collected over the course of the grant period from November 2008 through January 2010, including evaluation reports of the project activities (attached as appendices to this document), formative evaluation of the planning process, outcomes as conducted by the project PIs and staff, as well as observations from the external evaluator.

The purpose of the planning grant was to create an international network of people and resources within the food industry to enable and support the development of industry‐led Open Educational Resources (OER) that will provide individuals access to learning resources that are aligned with competencies. These competencies are based on recommendations from an industry committee, which provided targeted corporations with the basic level requirements for food manufacture. Led by Michigan State University (MSU) and the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), the resulting OER and FSKN will be the basis for the creation and provision of high‐quality, low‐cost training and education around issues associated with food safety for developing countries and developing businesses.

While the industry‐led collaboration commenced the OER effort, several other important activities were part of the planning grant. To create the resources to support the competencies, OER processes and workflow, use of DiscoverEd, and the creation of an open source competency database module all were technologically combined in a powerful website. The findings and the resulting codes and documentations from this project can serve as a guide and model for other endeavors focused on creating and searching topic‐specific OER.

This report, organized chronologically, discusses the activities that were accomplished during the grant period and the resulting outcomes associated with each activity. Observations and reflections on the activities and formative evaluation from the participants provide the basis for program improvements. Many of these improvements and next steps have been incorporated into the future plans for the network.

2.0 Food Safety Knowledge Network (FSKN)

2.1 Building the FSKN Pilot Group and Supporting Documents Prior to the start of this grant period, MSU met with the Global Food Safety Initiative’s (GFSI) Global Markets Working Group and created a subgroup known as the FSKN Working Group. The Global Markets Working Group is an officially recognized and sanctioned part of the GFSI Technical group. The FSKN pilot group is a subset of the Global Markets Working group along with MSU. The members of FSKN include: Kevin Swoffer (Chair of Technical Committee), Jan Kranghand (Chair of Global Markets and Sr. Department Manager Quality Assurance, Metro Buying Group), Marc Cwikowski (Quality Manager for


7


External Engagement, Coca‐Cola), Catherine Francois (Director of GFSI), Bizhan Pourkomailian (Senior Food Safety Manager, McDonald's Europe), Dominque Berget (Corporate Food Safety Director, Danone), Dr. Leslie Bourquin (MSU), Dr. Christine Geith (MSU), Dr. Deepa Thiagarajan (MSU), and Karen Vignare (MSU). The purpose of the FSKN is to further the goals of the GFSI through the development of

• voluntary food safety requirements for less developed businesses and small suppliers

• strategies for implementing the requirements internationally

• a set of competencies (associated with each requirement) to guide the development of training processes, curriculum, and assessment directed at the employees of less developed businesses and small suppliers.

To accomplish these goals, the Working Group began to develop a unique partnership between the corporate and academic sides of the food industry. Working with its stakeholders at multiple meetings held from December 2008 to January 2010 (see Appendix A for a chronological list of all meetings associated with the project) the group co‐developed a set of competencies to be used both for the Global Markets Working group and FSKN. Two separate committees working side by side co‐developed the corporate and individual competencies. The FSKN group also met separately to validate the initial list of competencies. In Amsterdam and Paris, the group devised and validated the initial set of associated competencies with the Basic Level Requirements for Food Manufacture for less developed businesses and small suppliers (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. GFSI Basic Level Requirements for Less Developed Businesses and Small Suppliers


8


In May 2009, the Global Markets Working Group approved the 14 Basic Level Food Manufacture requirements for corporations, allowing the FSKN to begin work on the competencies1. The Basic Level Requirements represent the first 30 percent of the total knowledge that the Global Markets Working Group is addressing. The rest will be addressed in the Intermediate Level Requirements and the GFSI Guidance Document. During this period, MSU initiated the platform to support the work of the FSKN. The task of the FSKN, using the building blocks of the Basic Level Requirements for Food Manufacture for less developed businesses and small suppliers, was to create a set of competencies for individuals (statements of knowledge, skill, and behavior) associated with each requirement. The group identified 90 competencies that articulate the knowledge and skill sets an individual food safety manager should have upon completion of training at the FSKN Basic Level. (See Appendix B for a listing of the individual competencies.) The group was also tasked with designing and pilot testing training curriculum (learning resources, materials, and assessment tools) regarding the competencies and requirements; the end goal being that the training and resources would be made widely and freely available as Open Educational Resources (OER).

2.2 Developing FSKN Curriculum Materials From May through August 2009, the FSKN pilot team (Bourquin, Thiagarajan, and Swoffer) focused on developing learning resources linked to the competencies. These initial learning resources served as seed materials for all of the pilot training programs. The long‐term goal is to continue to complement and localize these resources with additional ones from an ever expanding FSKN network. Examples of these materials can be found at http://foodsafetyknowledgenetwork.org (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. FSKN Home Page and Competency Correlation Page

1 While the corporate set of requirements identifies 14 areas of knowledge, the FSKN, after beta testing them, found significant overlap in the areas of control of food hazards. As are result, they combined them into a final set of 13 requirements.

http://foodsafetyknowledgenetwork.org/


9


The learning resources (organized by the GFSI requirements) were first produced in English and made available in the following formats: flash video, audio (mp3) video (mp4 for iPod), text transcriptions of lectures, and presentation slides (Power Point, PDF, OpenOffice). Training manuals were also produced. All formats of these resources (except for the transcripts and training manuals) have been translated into Chinese and are currently being translated into Arabic. In addition, ten stand alone online learning modules are in review and seven modules have been created from their storyboards in the Connexions OER Repository (http://cnx.org). The learners from the first online pilot (see Section 3.0) preferred the video files for iPod. (See Appendix C for an inventory of FSKN resources.)

While these resources were being created, the corporate members of the FSKN sought out training venues for testing the curriculum materials in face‐to‐face delivery. Four pilot training programs were planned and implemented. Three were conducted face‐to‐face in India, China, Egypt, and one was conducted online with an audience based in India. Another online pilot is currently in progress also with an audience based in India. In the online pilot, the make‐up of the FSKN gave the group the opportunity to leverage the resources from other MSUglobal projects as well as build on the previous training efforts of the corporations involved. (Details and findings from the pilot training programs are discussed in Section 3.0).

2.3 Creating Processes for OER Development While the FSKN pilot team began creating competencies, MSUglobal began creating instructional documentation and materials to support the development of OERs. To accomplish the goals of publishing OER, the internal team designed OER processes and procedures for collecting and creating content. For creating content, it was integral to think strategically about instructional use of materials. This meant moving beyond the original course proposed and into the level of individual learning resources. Thus learning resources could be combined to create a full course for Basic Level Food Manufacture, or they could be used separately if a learner desired to work on only a certain set of competencies.

This kind of flexibility supports a scaffolding process, which allows learners in an online environment to focus on the competency needed. However, the process also allows workshop trainers to use a complete package or focus on a limited number of competencies. Building the separate sets of materials was initiated through a capture process. The FSKN pilot team, with grant funding from another source, had an opportunity to prepare a workshop for India (the Chennai workshop is discussed later). In preparation for the workshop, MSU drafted an internal OER policy and procedures document (see Appendix D). While the FSKN pilot team was well aware of OER, the policy and procedures were designed to help new members of the FSKN and others at MSU to understand OER.

To speed initial capture of materials, the use of proprietary capture software Camtasia and Relay were used to record presenters. The capture process allowed for four immediate file output types—Power Point, flash video, audio mp3 and video mp4. The audio files were immediately transcribed to produce text transcripts files. In addition, the Power Point slide presentations were made available as PDFs and OpenOffice documents.

http://cnx.org/


10


While capturing presentations is important for providing a base of resources for learning, it should be noted that the internal team immediately started cataloging existing resources from training providers, universities, and non‐governmental organizations to align with the FSKN. The FSKN pilot team reviewed those lists and agreed on content that should be added to the website. The internal team prepared not only the policy document to explain OER, they also created an FSKN Toolkit document to explain how to contribute content (see Appendix D). Documenting the creation and publishing/sharing of OER materials was developed as part of the planning grant.

2.5 Using OER in the Food Industry (Corporations) The planning grant also provided funds to support the expansion and development of an international knowledge network, the Food Safety Knowledge Network. Early on in the project, the FSKN pilot team identified significant differences in the ways international food companies and academic institutions approach training and education, especially with regards to OER. OER is a nascent educational concept within academia as well as in US and international business and government agencies. The FSKN, through this planning grant, was uniquely placed to introduce the concept to the international community committed to food safety and to educate that community about its benefits and potential to inform and reform training practices and opportunities.

Introducing the conceptual underpinnings and practices of OER informally, through discussions at regular meetings of the GFSI members and FSKN, was not a strategy that sufficiently educated the corporate members of the group. So, to more formally introduce OER to food safety leaders and to initiate a discussion about how it might be used, the FSKN Pilot Team hosted a roundtable event in Washington DC on September 28, 2009, attended by 65 food safety experts (see Appendix E for a list of attendees).

The purpose of the event was to educate this group of stakeholders (members of US academic institutions, certification bodies, international donor organizations, training organizations, corporations, and US government organizations) about the goals and projects of the FSKN and to begin to ‘build out’ the network by inviting others to participate.

The timing of the event also made it possible for the FSKN pilot team to share the results of the first pilot training held September 7, 2009 in Chennai, India. Holding the event after the first pilot effort, allowed the team to give the group a concrete example of the kinds of training resources created and tested, and to validate the curriculum with potential users of such resources. The team was also able to demonstrate the OER side of the project, thereby introducing the audience to the concept and potential benefits of OER to corporate training practices.

2.4 Challenges in Implementing OER in a Corporate Setting The collaboration between MSU, GFSI, and the Global Markets Working Group brought to light the differences in legal liability and a number of challenges such as communication that are unique to an international collaboration among academic institutions, retailers, manufacturers, food service companies, and service providers. While there was a common understanding around the requirements


11


and the competencies, there was not agreement around how best to translate these into curriculum resources. The industry has developed since 2000 a requirements document which provides information on what is required, but those documents were not provided as instructional materials by the association. The creation of training and instruction was not something GFSI did and thus MSU was able to provide faculty experts and instructional designers to create curriculum.

The corporations involved in the pilot projects (and GFSI) are bound by certain legal restrictions that academic institutions do not experience and which call into question the nature of OER in this context. European Union law holds food companies liable for any illness or injury caused by their products. They are also liable for the work performance of the food professionals they employ. These liability issues, once brought to light, have called into question whether these organizations can fully participate as partners in FSKN to make the curriculum they use ‘open’ in OER terms, the terms commonly understood by most institutions of higher education in the US that are protected from liability claims associated with the information they provide.

The members of the collaboration have continued to work together to find a solution to this problem, since all agree on the need for high quality, effective training and training resources in this field. Currently, the curriculum resources will be made available on the FSKN website, but to avoid liability, they will not carry a GFSI endorsement of any sort.

3.0 FSKN Pilot Trainings From August 2009 to January 2010, the Food Safety Knowledge Network project conducted four pilot training programs (three face‐to‐face trainings and one online training). The following sections provide a summary of each training session (see Appendix F for more details regarding the assessment results).

3.1 Chennai, India – September 2009 • Face‐to‐face, three‐day training program conducted in partnership with USAID and led by: Dr.

Leslie Bourquin, Dr. Deepa Thiagarajan, and Kevin Swoffer .

• 74 participants from 25 Indian companies and 6 public sector organizations participated.

• 72 participants completed pre‐ and post‐tests to assess their knowledge. Overall performance scores improved by 19% between pre and post‐tests. Analysis of scores by each of the 13 areas under the Basic Level for Food Manufacture competency framework showed varying increases in knowledge by competency.

3.2 India August 2009 – January 2010 • Online training program conducted in partnership with METRO Cash and Carry. Online

curriculum identical to Chennai training and available in varied of formats, i.e., flash video, audio, video for iPod, PDF, etc.)

• 63 participants from 30 METRO Cash & Carry participated.

• 26 participants completed both pre‐ and post‐tests to assess their knowledge. The pre‐ and post‐tests were the same tests used in the Chennai training program. Overall performance scores improved by approximately eight percent between pre and post‐tests.


12


• Participants also completed surveys at the end of the experience to determine their satisfaction with the online nature of the training. There was strong overall support for the value and effectiveness of the online training. Participants also noted preference for audio resources over all others.

3.3 Cairo, Egypt – November 2009 • Face‐to‐face training program conducted in partnership with Makro (METRO) and UNIDO. Train‐

the‐trainer approach used with Kevin Swoffer training the trainers. Training materials and curriculum same as those used for Chennai training – materials translated into Arabic.

• 36 participants completed pre‐ and post‐tests to assess their knowledge. Overall performance scores improved by 16 % between pre and post‐tests.

3.4 Shanghai, China – December 2009 • Face‐to‐face 4‐day training program/conference conducted in partnership with the Coca‐Cola

Company, and led by: Dr. Leslie Bourquin, Dr. Deepa Thiagarajan and Kevin Swoffer. FSKN training modules based on the materials used in Chennai – materials translated into Chinese. In addition to FSKN training materials, the entire training program included topics dealing with pre‐harvest food safety, other prerequisite programs, and the ISO 22000 food safety management system.

• 142 participants from the Coca‐Cola Company participated, including representatives from bottlers, Coke customers, suppliers, and sub‐suppliers.

• 113 participants completed pre‐ and post‐tests to assess their knowledge. Overall results demonstrated an improvement in scores by 6%. Note, these scores are not directly comparable to other trainings because a short version of the test was used (70 questions instead of 132 in previous versions of the test).

3.5 Overall Summary The FSKN pilot activities in India, Egypt and China, all demonstrated the effectiveness of the training programs to improve participant knowledge regardless of educational attainment, previous training, or organization type. Groups with lower performance on the pre‐test tended to show the greatest improvement. Analysis of the results from the testing is continuing in order to learn more about how to improve the training and refine the learning materials.

The file formats the OER were created in played a significant role in the efficient reuse and remixing of the materials. The editable file formats allowed the resources to be localized and adapted for various audiences. Presentation slides were efficiently localized and translated for specific groups and videos were bundled with audio to provide Flash videos in both English and Chinese.

4.0 OER Support Technology While the website was not officially launched until mid‐February, 2010, preparation and planning was done early in the project. MSUglobal and its MSU partner, Virtual University Design and Technology (vuDAT), used open source technology to host the demonstration site for the OER network and created


13


an open source tool to map the OER to the competency frameworks (http://foodsafetyknowledgenetwork.org).

Content management open source platforms were immediately investigated as potential solutions. While many options exist, Drupal was chosen for its large community of developers and extensive list of modules developed for various website features and functionalities. Drupal served as the base to build from for accomplishing the tasks described in the planning grant. However, Drupal in and of itself did not provide a competencies database module nor did it provide a method for searching and pulling content to the website.

As a result, vuDAT programmers created an open source module that provides a way of creating a competency database and correlating resources to individual competencies. The current website demonstrates only the top level of competencies, but the module was built so that it could go five layers into a hierarchy. This allows for much deeper detail within competencies and eventually a learner could choose only a sub category of a competency to learn. While this level of sophistication was not quite necessary when the planned three parts of FSKN become a reality, this will be a useful tool in the future (see Appendix G for more details).

The other challenging part of developing the OER technology was determining how to best integrate Creative Commons’ DiscoverEd search tool into the competency database. DiscoverEd provides an enhanced search experience for users looking for educational resources by looking for materials from selected curators and displaying valuable metadata on the resources. The competency database only includes competencies while learning resources are culled to match a competency. This required writing code to customize DiscoverEd so it would work with Drupal. It also required that both an RSS feed and Open Architecture Index (OAI) be incorporated. These tools pull with an RSS or OAI standard from our own and other websites materials to support learning of the competencies. In addition by adding OAI especially for MSU materials, we have begun an education process which demonstrates the use of OAI for content repositories. If a provider does not want to or cannot implement the OAI standard, they have the option of uploading to a website that does use OAI (see Appendix G for more details.)

5.0 Findings and Recommendations MSU has updated the logic model and program charts in Appendix H. Those charts show in an abbreviated format the accomplishments and challenges faced during this planning grant.

5.1 Project Management Observations and Recommendations

University and Industry Collaboration and Support for FSKN Observation The intent of FSKN was to use OER as a method of low‐cost learning in an industry led collaboration with MSU. This collaboration remains focused on the goals, but the collaboration encountered unexpected challenges in working with a large association. While the director remained in place, the members and goals of the GFSI changed as well as the members and goals of the working committees over the life of the grant. However, by working closely with individuals of corporations who are members of the

http://foodsafetyknowledgenetwork.org/


14


association, the team was able to use the materials for training suppliers even before the formal launch of FSKN, to use the materials for training suppliers in emerging markets.

Recommendations 1. All partnerships require clear, consistent, and constant communications to maintain successful

working relationship. An industry and academic partnerships often speak about issues in specific lenses, it is critical to write things down and provide examples.

2. It is important to engage companies with a need for training to be part of the project team as they are likely to help pilot the materials and be the first to implement the OER approach.

Development of HighQuality/LowCost Training and Educational Curricula Observation Building FSKN OER curriculum is similar process to assembling any type of curricular materials, yet two instructional design skills are also needed: understanding of OER licensing and workflow processes and using a scaffolding approach built with either competencies or taxonomies as the framework.

Recommendations 3. The launch of Open Education Resources requires documentation and staff who can be clear

about Creative Commons licensing and who can build processes and workflow. 4. Building learning resources that allow learners to self‐select what information they are

interested in knowing requires instructional design staff members who understand how to integrate scaffolding into the learning resource.

Development of an OER Delivery Platform Observation Many tools and technologies currently exist to create an open website using a repository and search. Yet, there are very few examples of websites for specialized content. Employing a competency framework and customizing DiscoverEd from ccLearn showcases the information technology programming and processes which need to be adopted to effectively launch FSKN. While many other websites use open source content management systems, competency frameworks or taxonomies, and search, no other websites we found do all three for a specific content area.

Recommendations 5. Review open source software technologies and modules to see what exists from previous

projects and include staff members who understand open source, languages, and architecture to choose a platform that can be customized.

6. Work closely with Creative Commons to determine what improvements are underway and then revise code to write customization for search technologies.

7. Build an open module to work with platform which provides a way to linearly organize a framework, like a competencies or taxonomies.


15


5.2 External Evaluator’s Observations and Recommendations

University and Industry Collaboration and Support for FSKN Observation The collaboration between MSU and GFSI, embodied by the FSKN, was critical to the development of valid and agreed upon Basic Level Requirements and individual competencies and the eventual implementation of pilot training projects. Involvement by the GFSI lent credibility to the work of the FSKN and provided links to representatives from leading industries (Coca Cola and METRO Cash and Carry) as well as other international organizations such as UNIDO. These links proved essential in terms of setting up and running pilot training programs.

Recommendations 1. Build out from initial partner set to involved more corporate and international organizations

such as the World Trade Organization or the World Bank. 2. Continue to use, refine, and expand on this planning and development process of stakeholder

involvement to establish requirements and competencies for the Intermediate and Advanced Requirement Levels.

Observation Involvement of corporate and international stakeholders at the planning level make it possible to quickly create venues for training, both face to face and online. Without this involvement, it would have taken much longer and required significant effort on the part of the FSKN to set up and run trainings.

Recommendation 3. Find ways to recruit and bring into the process new stakeholder representatives to create new

training opportunities at the higher levels and/or to extend Basic Level trainings.

Observation Stakeholder involvement in the planning process proved to be an effective means for educating the food industry about OER. As a result of participating in the process, and learning about OER first hand, the industry representatives became advocates for OER.

Recommendations 4. Find ways to involve first set of industry representatives to recruit new members to the planning

process. 5. Develop a means to involve industry representatives in educating their peers about OER. These

representatives can be powerful allies and can speak directly to the challenges and opportunities offered by OER and food safety training.

Development of HighQuality/LowCost Training and Educational Curricula Observation The FSKN team members, Prof. Leslie Bourquin and Prof. Deep Thiagarajan of MSU, and Kevin Swoffer, consultant, designed the original training curriculum, made modifications for each instantiation of the


16


training, led the bulk of the in‐person trainings and implemented the assessment of the trainings from design to analysis. This process is not sustainable over the long run.

While during the pilot phase of the project, it is important to establish and maintain high quality control in the development of the curriculum and its implementation and assessment; this type of work takes an enormous amount of effort and resources to maintain over the long‐term. The barriers reflected in this model, i.e., lack of adequate resources or reliance upon volunteerism or people who will undertake it as a ‘labor or love’ may doom growth of the effort.

If the training is to grow in scope and become more available to more food industries, this training process must be modified to allow others to learn the process and implement it on their own, thereby reinforcing the purpose of the materials being OER.

Recommendations 6. Develop and make available learning materials for trainers (beyond the training manual),

supporting their efforts to conduct training on their own. There is much to be learned from the online training conducted in India and the train‐the‐train model utilized in Egypt. These models should be examined carefully and lessons learned applied to developing materials for trainers, not just trainees.

7. Develop online social networking and a community site for trainers. This type of support will help make materials more accessible as well as be a valuable aid to others who wish to develop their own materials. It is also an essential component to ensuring quality of trainings, not just the materials.

Observation The assessment of the pilot trainings offers much needed insight into the learning of food safety competencies; however, it is but one step in the process of determining the impact of that learning.

Recommendations 8. Examine the validity and reliability of the shorter, 70‐item assessment instrument as compared

to the 132‐item instrument. Should the 70‐item instrument stand up, make it available as the main assessment instrument.

9. Based on findings from Recommendation 8, consider creating an item bank of tested assessment items (or instruments) for use by trainers. The item bank could provide trainers with more flexibility in terms of matching assessments to the workshop curriculum and how they use it. (Please note, in this recommendation and others, the evaluator assumes reuse of the OER is a goal, thus derivative versions of all materials will be used. This has already been the case as the curriculum developers changed materials for each pilot training conducted during the planning phase.)

10. Design and conduct a longitudinal study regarding the impact of trainings on changes in practice of the participants.


17


11. Expand assessment of training to include issues such as: improved or increased access to learning materials, changes in what and how it is learned. Include specific industry concerns in the assessment, e.g., is training more efficient and what is the return on investment of such training?

Observation In order to grow, the project (and website) need to attract trainers who will make derivative works based on the existing materials or develop new works to meet the standards but sensitive to their unique environment or audiences. Currently, there is no mechanism to ensure the quality of these materials. High quality materials are of special significance given the need for credentialing in the field, the high health and safety risks involved to the customers of the training participants, and the liability issues associated with GSFI that have already been identified.

Recommendation 12. The high standards in this field do not seem to readily meld or mesh with the philosophy and

goals of OER. The program leaders, in collaboration with industry leaders need to make creating an overlap between the two a priority. Explore multiple methods of review to devise a quality control system for this audience and within this environment. Several models exist: for example, professional societies, academic associations and trade organizations all employ multiple models for quality assessment. While perhaps not directly applicable in this situation given some of the challenges, they should be examined for potential use. For example, the peer review system employed for health related professional societies (medicine, dentistry, etc.) may be particularly pertinent.

Development of an OER Delivery Platform Observation The site is still in the development phase of its life‐cycle. As such, not much is known about how its users and potential users interact with it or hope to interact with it.

Recommendations 13. Implement user testing of the site. This should be done in several stages, the first being in‐

person observation of the site by intended users (or proxies of such users.) The next stage might involve creating a user panel of intended users for more longitudinal study of the site. This panel would be a useful way to track use as users become more sophisticated in their use of the site.

14. Implement a web‐tracking system to identify how all users access materials and use the site. This is also an essential piece in conducting a gap analysis to determine those content areas that require more materials or in determining features that might require refinement or identifying new features to improve user experience.


18


Sustainability Observation Like all OER projects the most significant challenge is that of sustainability. The question of how the project will continue to exist and grow must begin to be addressed, even at this early stage in its development.

Recommendation 15. The collaboration with the GSFI has led to the development of requirements at both the

industry and individual level. Curriculum and training methods have been developed that demonstrate increased knowledge about the requirements that may show to have a strong return on investment in the training. The benefits to industry and the value to their own training efforts may be the starting point for exploring funding of the project by industry. Clearly, liability issues must be addressed, but these are not insurmountable. Key to the process will be demonstrating, in and on business terms, the value of the project to their continued success in food safety.

5.3 Summary and Conclusions The FSKN planning grant demonstrated the use of OERs within an industry‐university partnership. To complete Phase II of the grant, it will be critical to recognize that cultivating partnerships takes time. While many content partners, including corporations, are willing to contribute resources, it is very time consuming to explain OER, secure and create learning materials, and have them reviewed. The process is indeed quite doable but until the project has developed a viral pull, it is critical to maintain and support a coordinator like MSU to keep FSKN growing and thriving.

It is noteworthy that the FSKN project has generated a very high level of interest among donor agencies and others working in emerging markets. We anticipate that the immediate next steps for the FSKN project include 1) formal launch of the FSKN website, 2) expansion of FSKN training activities to other regions, and 3) in conjunction with the GFSI Global Markets Working Group, expansion of the program to Intermediate Level for Food Manufacturing and Basic Level for Primary Production.


19


Appendices

A. Timeline of Meetings

December 2008 (Paris) Official FSKN working group launched

February 2009 (Barcelona) Informal meetings of FSKN at GFSI conference

February 2009 (Amsterdam) Competency Development Meeting

March 2009 (Paris) Competency Development and FSKN Update Meeting

May 2009 (Chicago) Informal FSKN meetings at GFSI Technical Committee meetings

June 2009 (Lansing) Development Team working on Individual Competencies

August 2009 (Paris) Official FSKN Update Meeting

September 2009 (Chennai) FSKN Workshop

September 2009 (Online) Metro E‐Learning pilot Launched

September 2009 (DC) FSKN OER Launch meeting

November 2009 (Egypt) FSKN training with UNIDO

December 2009 (Shanghai) Coca Cola Food Safety Conference (includes FSKN) training

January 2010 (Paris) FSKN Update meeting


20


B. Basic Level Competency Framework

Competency Area and Criteria

Food Safety Manager Competency

Competency

Specifications The organization shall ensure that specifications are adequate, accurate and shall ensure compliance with relevant food safety and legislative requirements.

Technical and legal knowledge

The individual will describe the principles and reasons for meeting established specifications of raw materials, ingredients, product contact materials and finished goods.

Legal knowledge & customer requirements

The individual will explain how to access and apply information (legal and customer requirements).


The individual will explain the process for updating specifications based on changes in legal and customer requirements.


The individual will maintain knowledge of food safety requirements which will affect specification information.

Writing skills The individual will construct written specifications for raw materials, ingredients, product contact materials and finished goods.

Traceability The organization shall establish a system which enables the identification of product lots and their relation to batches of raw materials, primary and consumer unit packaging materials, processing and distribution records. Records shall include: identification of any in coming product or ingredient, complete records of batches of in‐process or final product, and record of purchaser and delivery destination for all product supplied.


The individual will describe the principles and reasons for product traceability.


The individual will explain their awareness of the regulations and customer requirements associated with product traceability.

System development The individual will collate data on origins of raw materials, usage of ingredients and product contact materials.

System development The individual will design a system (i.e. lot identification, finished product coding) that identifies the relationship and linkage between finished goods and raw materials, ingredients, product contact materials and process conditions.

System development The individual will describe how to manage the system (i.e. implementing and record keeping).


21


Incident Management The organization shall have an effective product withdrawal and recall procedure for all products, which shall include the provision of information to the customer.


The individual will describe the principles and reasons for incident management.

Technical knowledge The individual will identify product issues/complaints with respect to consumer safety.

Technical knowledge The individual will analyze the significance of product issues/ complaints with respect to consumer safety.

Technical knowledge The individual will explain the actions required in the event that product issues/complaints warrant action by the company.


The individual will describe their awareness of the regulations and customer requirements associated with the management of incidents.

System development The individual will design a product quarantine system for product within control of the company.

System development The individual will explain how to manage a product quarantine system for product within control of the company.

System development The individual will design a product recall system.

System development The individual will explain how to manage a product recall system.

Control of Non‐Conforming Product The organization shall ensure that any product, which does not conform to requirements, is clearly identified and controlled to prevent unintended use or delivery.


The individual will describe the principles and reasons for control of non‐conforming product.


The individual will identify the regulations and customer requirements for non‐ conforming product.


The individual will identify the regulations and customer requirements for control and reporting of non‐conforming product.

Technical knowledge The individual will explain the significance of product quality in relation to non‐conforming product.

Technical Knowledge The individual will analyze the food safety risks associated with non ‐conforming product.


22


Technical Knowledge The individual will explain the options available for disposition of non‐conforming product.

System development The individual will explain how to design a product quarantine system.

System development The individual will explain how to manage a system necessary for proper evaluation and disposition of non‐conforming product.

Corrective Action The organization shall ensure that corrective action be undertaken as soon as possible to prevent further occurrence of non‐conformity.


The individual will describe the principles and reasons for corrective actions as they relate to process, product and system non‐conformities.

System development The individual will describe a process for corrective action that provides links to other system processes.


The individual will identify the regulations and customer requirements associated with corrective actions.

Technical knowledge The individual will identify the possible causes of non‐conformities.

Technical knowledge The individual will identify the options for corrective action based on sound risk‐based decision making.

Technical knowledge The individual will analyze the significance of food safety risks in determining corrective action.

Technical knowledge The individual will explain how to check that corrective actions taken have been effective.

Technical knowledge The individual will explain the difference between correcting a problem and taking corrective action to prevent the problem from reoccurring.

Personal Hygiene The organization shall have processes and procedures in place to ensure the implementation of employee and visitor personal hygiene


The individual will describe the principles and reasons for effective personal hygiene (i.e.. hand washing, personal cleanliness, illness, injury, personal behavior, and visitor control).


The individual will explain how to access regulations and customer requirements governing effective personal hygiene (i.e. hand


23


practices. Such practices shall result in the sanitary handling and delivery of safe and quality products to customer. The Codex Alimentarius Commission's recommendation on personal hygiene shall be followed.

washing, personal cleanliness, illness, injury, personal behavior, and visitor control).

Technical knowledge The individual will explain when to apply proper hand washing techniques.

Technical knowledge The individual will identify employees with symptoms of illness (i.e. fever, vomiting, diarrhea, sore throat) so they can ensure that ill individuals who might pose a risk to food safety are not allowed to work with food.

System development The individual will design a system for employees and visitors to notify the organization of any symptoms of illness and injury that may preclude them from working in direct contact with food.

System development The individual will operate a system for employees and visitors to notify the organization of any symptoms of illness and injury that may preclude them from working in direct contact with food.

System development The individual will design a system to enforce procedures in relation to illness and injury, personal cleanliness, personal behavior which could result in the contamination of food and food safety provision for visitors.

System development The individual will operate a system to enforce procedures in relation to illness and injury, personal cleanliness, personal behavior which could result in the contamination of food and food safety provision for visitors.

Facility Environment The organization shall ensure the site or facility shall be maintained so as to prevent contamination and enable the production of safe products.


The individual will describe the principles and reasons for maintaining the site and facility to ensure the production of safe food.


The individual will explain their awareness of regulations and customer requirements governing the facility environment.


The individual will describe the criteria to be in place within a food premises to ensure food safety, with particular reference to: power supplies, fuel supplies, lighting, heating/chilling (environmental), toilet


24


provision, washing (personal hygiene) facilities, and fabrication maintenance.


The individual will describe the requirements in relation to surfaces and finishes for: work surfaces, food equipment, fittings and utensils, walls, floors and ceilings.


The individual will describe the requirements for effective workflow arrangements to avoid cross contamination.


The individual will describe the need for regular and reliable maintenance, including prevention of contamination during maintenance.


The individual will describe the need for suitable storage facilities in order to avoid cross contamination and temperature abuse.


The individual will describe the need for suitable access and egress arrangements with particular reference to product incoming and outgoing, worker access, and emergency services.


The individual will describe the need for suitable waste storage and/or disposal facilities.

System development The individual will design a system to assess the effectiveness of the maintenance of the site and facilities.

Cleaning and Disinfection The organization shall ensure appropriate standards of cleaning and disinfection shall be maintained at all times and throughout all the stages.


The individual will describe the principles of and reasons for cleaning and disinfection.


The individual will describe regulations governing cleanliness requirements.


The individual will describe the regulations and customer requirements associated with use of cleaning and sanitizing chemicals.


The individual will describe the appropriate use (i.e. concentration, contact time, temperature, pH, contamination level, microbial targets) of chemicals to ensure appropriate levels of cleanliness.


25


System development The individual will design a system for suitable cleaning and disinfection i.e. develop (i.e.. who, what, when, frequency, how).

System development The individual will operate a system to manage (i.e.. implementing, monitoring, corrective actions) and maintain (i.e. effectiveness, continuous improvement) a documented operational procedure for identifying that appropriate cleaning and disinfection procedures are in place.

Technical knowledge The individual will explain how to assess (i.e. visual, record review, or other methods) the effectiveness of cleaning and disinfection practices that have been applied.

Product Contamination Control The organization shall ensure appropriate facilities and procedures are in place to control physical, chemical, or biological contamination of product. Appropriate controls shall be in place to minimize incidence of contamination by foreign bodies.


The individual will describe the principles and reasons for ensuring product contamination control.


The individual will explain regulations and customer requirements governing the control of product contamination.

Technical knowledge The individual will explain the steps taken to minimize the risk of contamination by physical, chemical and biological contaminants.

System development The individual will design a system to ensure the control of any possible product contaminants.

System development The individual will operate a system to ensure the control of any possible product contaminants.

Pest Control The organization shall ensure controls are in place to reduce or eliminate the risk of pest infestation (including rodents, insects and birds).


The individual will describe regulations and customer requirements relating to pest control.


The individual will explain the hazard posed by specific food pests and the controls required to reduce the risk to the product.


The individual will explain the preferred habitat of relevant food pests with particular reference to the company's facility.

Technical and legal The individual will explain the environmental,


26


knowledge physical and chemical methods of preventing and controlling pest infestations of the facility.


The individual will explain the system used to monitor the effectiveness of pest controls and define corrective actions.

System development The individual will design a system to minimize the risk of pest infestation of the product and facility through the inspection and control of raw materials, factory cleanliness, maintenance and specific control measures.

System development The individual will operate a system to minimize the risk of pest infestation of the product and facility through the inspection and control of raw materials, factory cleanliness, maintenance and specific control measures.

Water Quality The organization shall ensure the quality of water, ice, or steam in contact with food product shall be suitable for intended use at the facility. All food contact water, ingredient water, and water used in cleaning and sanitizing operations shall be determined to be from a potable source.


The individual will describe reasons for ensuring water quality.


The individual will explain the regulations and customer requirements associated with water quality, ice and steam.


The individual will explain the characteristics of properly constructed water wells (where applicable) and plumbing systems necessary for delivery of potable water, ice, and steam.

System development The individual will design a system to ensure the quality of water, ice and steam.

System development The individual will operate a system to ensure the quality of water, ice and steam.

Control of Food Hazards: General & Specific The organization shall reduce the risk of unsafe food by taking preventative measures to assure the safety and suitability of food at an appropriate stage or stages in their operation by controlling food hazards. The organization


The individual will describe the principles and reasons for controlling food hazards.


The individual will explain the nature of food safety hazards (biological, chemical, physical and allergens) and factors influencing the likelihood of their occurrence (e.g. conditions which influence food safety hazards commonly associated with specific ingredients used, specific processes undertaken, and specific foods produced) (customer requirements and legislation).


27


shall control food hazards through the use of systems such as HACCP. They shall: undertake a risk analysis to identify all possible hazards, identify any steps in their operations which are critical to the safety of food, implement effective procedures at those steps to defined limits as appropriate for food safety, monitor control procedures to ensure their continuing effectiveness, and review control procedures periodically, and whenever the operations change.


The individual will explain the recognized and known control measures and how to apply these to control hazards relevant to specific products (take into consideration local regulatory compliance and customer requirements).


The individual will design the monitoring procedures necessary to ensure control of food safety hazards relevant to the product.


The individual will perform corrective actions when control measures are not achieved.


The individual will operate a system for maintaining comprehensive records in relation to the control of identified hazards.

Control of Food Hazards: Allergens The organization shall ensure there are adequate control measures in place to prevent cross contamination of allergens. All ingredients known to cause food allergies in the product shall be clearly identified and communicated to the customer.


The individual will describe the principles and reasons for controlling food allergens.

Legal knowledge and customer requirements

The individual will be able to explain regulations and customer requirements governing the presence and control of allergens.


The individual will explain the recognized and known control measures and how to apply these to control food allergens within the facility (take into consideration local regulatory compliance and customer requirements).


The individual will design the monitoring procedures necessary to ensure control of food allergens.


The individual will perform corrective actions when control measures are not achieved.


The individual will operate a system for maintaining comprehensive records in relation to the control of allergens.

Personal Skills Interpersonal Skills The individual will describe how to effectively interact and communicate verbally with company management, regulatory agencies, customers, suppliers, and employees.


28


Team Management Skills

The individual will describe how to effectively manage collaborative activities of interdisciplinary teams to address matters pertaining to food safety and quality.

Teaching , Employee Development

The individual will describe how to effectively teach employees about appropriate practices critical to maintenance of food safety. (This teaching could include topics such as appropriate personal hygiene, effective methods for cleaning and disinfection of equipment and food contact surfaces, methods for control of potential food contaminants, methods for monitoring of food hazard controls, etc.)

People Management Skills

The individual will describe how to effectively manage employees to ensure they are following appropriate practices necessary for production of safe food.

Reading Comprehension

The individual will interpret appropriate legal and technical documents pertaining to product safety, legality and quality. (This will include documents such as food laws, regulations, guidance, best practices related to food safety, customer requirements and customer specifications.)

Systems Development

The individual will describe how to develop or modify the organization’s food safety control systems to comply with new requirements related to emerging laws and regulations, relevant guidance, customer requirements, emerging science and the organization’s Basic Level requirements.

Analytical Problem Solving

The individual will identify problems, consider options for resolution and adopt the correct action to resolve problems pertaining to the organization’s Basic Level requirements.

Writing The individual will describe how to effectively write technical and non‐technical documents and communications related to relevant food safety requirements or practices and customer requirements.

Observation The individual will describe how to effectively


29


monitor employee practices to ensure compliance with company policies and food safety requirements.

Assertiveness The individual will describe how to effectively communicate food safety requirements to the organization’s management and employees, and ensure these requirements are addressed and applied through policies and practices.

Self Motivation The individual will describe how to independently access and apply knowledge, such as new research, information on outbreaks/incidents or other findings relevant to the safety of the organization’s products.

Leadership The individual will define the correct decisions to safeguard the safety of the consumer, even if the outcome of these decisions might carry economic costs, potentially cause other adverse consequences, or otherwise be discouraged by management.


30


C. Inventory of FSKN Resources The resources created for FSKN are listed below in two ways: first by topic in English and in Chinese and secondly by event. The resources have the following copyright and licenses:

Materials from/for Pilot Programs No official licensing statement

Materials from Coca‐Cola Food Safety Conference © 2009 Coca‐Cola Company, Michigan State University, and Global Food Safety Initiative, licensed using Creative Commons Attribution‐Share Alike 3.0 Unported (CC‐BY‐SA)

Materials in Connexions (CNX) This work is licensed by Food Safety Knowledge Network under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC‐BY 3.0)

By Topic | English

Flash Video Mp4 (iPod)

Mp3 (audio)

Transcript Slides

(PPT, PDF, ODP)

Online Learning Module

Training Manual

CNX Module

Cleaning and Disinfection X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

Control of Food Hazards Allergens X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (In review)

X (Pilot)

X

Control of Food Hazards General & Specific

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (In review)

X (Pilot)

X

Control of NonConforming Product X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (In review)

X (Pilot)

Corrective Action X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (In review)

X (Pilot)

Facility Environment X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (In review)

X (Pilot)

Incident Management X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (In review)

X (Pilot)

X

Personal Hygiene X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (In review)

X (Pilot)

X

Pest Control X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (In review)

X (Pilot)

X

Product Contamination Control X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (In review)

X (Pilot)

X

Specifications X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)


31


Traceability X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

Water Quality X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (Pilot)

X (Pilot &

Coca‐Cola)

X (In review)

X (Pilot)

X

By Topic | Chinese


Mp3 (audio)

Slides (PPT, PDF, ODP)

Cleaning and Disinfection X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Control of Food Hazards Allergens X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Control of Food Hazards General & Specific X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Control of NonConforming Product X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Corrective Action X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Facility Environment X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Incident Management X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Personal Hygiene X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Pest Control X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Product Contamination Control X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Specifications X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Traceability X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

Water Quality X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

X (Coca‐Cola)

By Event | Pilot Programs Chennai, India Workshop | METRO Online | Tetley Online


Mp3 (audio) Transcript


Training Manual

Cleaning and Disinfection X X X X X X Control of Food Hazards Allergens X X X X X X Control of Food Hazards General & Specific X X X X X X Control of NonConforming Product X X X X X X Corrective Action X X X X X X Facility Environment X X X X X X Incident Management X X X X X X Personal Hygiene X X X X X X Pest Control X X X X X X Product Contamination Control X X X X X X Specifications X X X X X X


32


Traceability X X X X X X Water Quality X X X X X X

By Event | CocaCola Food Safety Conference (December 2009)


Mp3 (audio)


Cleaning and Disinfection X (English & Chinese)

X (English & Chinese)



Control of Food Hazards Allergens X (English & Chinese)




Control of Food Hazards General & Specific X (English & Chinese)




Control of NonConforming Product X (English & Chinese)




Corrective Action X (English & Chinese)




Facility Environment X (English & Chinese)




Incident Management X (English & Chinese)




Personal Hygiene X (English & Chinese)




Pest Control X (English & Chinese)




Product Contamination Control X (English & Chinese)




Specifications X (English & Chinese)




Traceability X (English & Chinese)




Water Quality X (English & Chinese)





33


D. OER Policy & Procedures and FSKN Toolkit

1. Michigan State University Open Educational Resources (OER) Policy & Procedures

Background Open Educational Resources (OER) are educational materials (syllabi, captured lectures, lecture notes, slide presentations, learning modules, simulations, tools, etc.) that are freely available for use, reuse, adaptation, and sharing through an open license. By licensing materials with a Creative Commons licenses, content creators keep the copyright but allow people to copy and distribute their work provided they give the creator credit (attribute the work in the manner specified) – and only on the conditions specified by the creator (Creative Commons). The benefits of openly sharing include:

1. Wider dissemination of material. With an open license, contributions are more likely to be used, shared, distributed, and picked up by online searches.

2. Increased recognition. Anytime a work is used and distributed, it will be attributed to the creator and to Michigan State University, therefore building awareness and building the MSU brand.

3. Easier collaboration. Using an open license lowers the barriers for collaboration with other colleagues, universities, countries, etc.

4. Make a statement. Sharing openly makes a statement about the creator's and institution's desire to improve access to learning opportunities by sharing knowledge, resources, and expertise.

OER@MSU Roles At Michigan State University, MSUglobal will be responsible for making sure the open educational resources created at MSU follow the appropriate procedures and will provide guidance to all faculty, units, and departments to make their materials openly available. MSUglobal will provide the necessary forms as well as information on licensing and tracking of materials. MSUglobal will submit forms to MSU Technologies on behalf of the creator and retain copies of submitted forms.

OER@MSU Characteristics Open educational resources at MSU will follow the guidance of MSUglobal and comply with the following statements:

1. OER is published openly for public use. 2. OER is designed to be used and modified internally and by the public. 3. OER contains only openly‐licensed materials in order to maximize internal and public use and

modification of materials. 4. OER is copyrighted by Michigan State University and licensed using a Creative Commons

copyright license and a standard attribution statement.


34


MSU OER Request f

Page 1: Cover Page

or Approval Form

Resource title: _______________________________________________________________

Author(s) of resource:

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

Person responsible for the resource:

Name: ____________________________________

Email: ____________________________________

Phone: ____________________________________

Permanent location of resource: _________________________________________________

Description of resource:

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Checklist for attachments:

MSU Author Statement form completed for the resource stated above. Signatures of the appropriate deans and department chairs for each author listed on the Author Statement form.

Faculty OER Release form

Received and Approved: ___________________________________ ___________________ Michael R. Poterala, Executive Director Date MSU Technologies

MSUT Office Use Only: Date Received Case No.


35 Michigan State University

Page 2: MSU Author's Statement

We, the undersigned, are the complete set of authors for:

_____________________________________________________________________ (Name of Product) for which University support was received, and therefore is copyrighted by the Board of Trustees of Michigan State University as provided in the policy entitled, "Development of Copyright Materials" contained in the MSU Faculty Handbook, http://www.hr.msu.edu/documents/facacadhandbooks/facultyhandbook/copyrightedmaterial.htm. We understand that external distribution of this product will be governed by the provisions of the "Development of Copyright Materials" policy, and coordinated through MSU Technologies.

Our royalties should be split as follows:

Author Name and Department/College (please print) % Effort (total must equal 100%)

________________________________________________ ___________________________

________________________________________________ ___________________________

________________________________________________ ___________________________

________________________________________________ ___________________________

Check one:

This product does not infringe on any existing copyright or other legal right. This product contains material copyrighted external to Michigan State University. Copies of permission letters are attached.

Check one:

This product was developed with support from extramural gifts, grants, and/or contracts. Please provide name(s)of funding agencies and associated University account number(s): _____________________________________________________________________________

This product was not developed with support from extramural gifts, grants, and contracts.

Signed: Date:

_____________________________________________________ __________________________

_____________________________________________________ __________________________

_____________________________________________________ __________________________

_____________________________________________________ __________________________



Page 3: Faculty OER Release Form

Please select an option.

Option 1:

By signing on the line directly below:

I (we), ____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

hereby grant to MSU a non‐exclusive, royalty‐free license in perpetuity to use the online instructional content I (we) have developed for the resource titled _________________________________(Content). I (we) understand that MSU may use the Content or derivative works of the Content for other instructional purposes and that other faculty may use the Content to teach this particular course or other instructional programs.

Option 2:

By signing on the line directly below:

I (we), ____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

____________________________________

hereby grant to MSU a non‐exclusive, royalty‐free license in perpetuity to make the online instructional content I (we) have developed for the resource titled _________________________________(Content) available on a free and open basis to the world.


37


2. Food Safety Knowledge Network (FSKN) Toolkit

FSKN Activities 1. Help partners license their content using various open licenses (e.g. Creative Commons) 2. Help partners publish their content along with metadata feeds that follow open archive

standards a. Options to partners with current publishing platform b. Options to partners without a publishing platform

3. Add partner meta data feeds to FSKN metadata harvester 4. Review harvested data and assign correlations 5. Correlations are based on competency framework for Basic Requirements for Food Manufacture 6. FSKN users, search for content and view correlations in addition to the source content


38


Become a Content Partner If you have learning materials on food safety and would like to share it in a way that will impact the quality of food safety around the world, the Food Safety Knowledge Network (FSKN) would like to invite you to become a content partner. FSKN is a collaboration between the Global Food Safety Initiative and Michigan State University. Its goal is to help strengthen the food industry's response to the complex food safety knowledge and training challenges that affect emerging markets by providing access to free learning resources.

We can help disseminate your learning materials whether or not they are already published online. If you are thinking about redesigning your website, we can also help you add a function that will make your content easily searchable.

Unlike general search tools like Google, FSKN's search tool will only search the sites of our content partners for materials on food safety. This exclusive search provides users with reliable and high quality

ithout sorting through hundreds of unrelated results. content results w

Open Licensing

The FSKN search tool searches for materials that are openly licensed. Creative Commons (CC) licenses are the most commonly used open licenses where you keep your copyright, but allow people to legally copy and distribute your work as long as they give you credit. You can set specific conditions on your work. For more information, please visit Creative Commons.

Content partners are asked to license food safety learning materials with a Creative Commons license and make the license visible on the website and/or the actual content pieces

Options for Sharing Depending on the current state of your materials, there are several options for content partners to have

p on FSKN's search. their materials show u

Published Materials

If you have food safety learning materials published on your website and do not already use the Open Archive framework, unless you are planning to redesign your website, you have the following options:

1. Work with your website administrator to add an RSS feed to your content. 2. Allow FSKN to ma

Unpublished Materials

nually add your content to its database to make it searchable.

If you have food safety learning materials but they are not published online, there are several places you can put your content that will make it easy to find using the FSKN search. The recommended platform is Connexions (http://cnx.org) which is a place to view and share educational material made of small knowledge chunks called modules that can be organized as courses, books, reports, etc.

http://cnx.org/



E. DC Roundtable Forum Attendees

Catherine Adams President, RdR Solutions (630) 605‐3022 Jeffrey Armstrong Dean, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Michigan State University 102 Agriculture Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 355‐0232 [email protected] Sam Beattie Assistant Professor / Food Safety Extension Iowa State University 2312 Food Science Building Ames, Iowa 50011 ‐ 1061 (515) 294‐3357 [email protected] Stephen Benoit Chief Operating Officer National Center for Food Protection (269) 372‐6256 [email protected] Leslie Bourquin Associate Professor, Food Science and Human Nutrition, Michigan State University 139A Trout Building East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 355‐8474 Ext. 112 [email protected] John Bowman Principal Development Specialist, DAI 7600 Wisconsin Ave. Ste. 200 Bethesda, MD 20814 (301) 771‐7600 [email protected]

Barbara A Brown Community Development / Military Clemson University 115 N. Harvin St. Sumter, SC 29150‐3277 (803) 968‐0388 [email protected] Winston Chance Director of Quality Assurance, Rema Foods (410) 490‐4420 Tom Chestnut Vice President Food Safety and Quality NSF International Strategic Registrations 789 N. Dixboro Road Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 827‐6802 [email protected] Dan Clay Director, International Institute of Agriculture Michigan State University 319 Agriculture Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 353‐1309 [email protected] Marc Cwikowski Principal QA Specialist The Coca – Cola Company, Belgium Chaussee de Mons 1424 1070 Brussels Belgium 3 249 705 2416 [email protected] Luz Diaz Rios Agriculture and Rural Development, World Bank 1818 H. St. NW, Room MC‐5‐704A Washington, DC 20433 (202) 458‐7337 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]











40


Ron Diem Director Quality Assurance, Sysco Corporation (281) 584‐7035 Dave Dimas Director, Engineering, Science and Technology UC Irvine (949) 824‐5380 [email protected] Katherine Fedder Director, MDA Food & Dairy Division PO Box 30017 Lansing, MI 48909 (517) 373‐1060 [email protected] Reinaldo Figueiredo Senior Program Director American National Standards Institute 1819 L Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331‐3611 [email protected] Thomas Ford Vice President, Food Safety, Ecolab 370 N. Wabasha St. St. Paul, MN 55102 (651) 293‐2233 [email protected] Catherine Francois Director of Food Safety, GFSI 7, rue de Madrid 75008 Paris ‐ France 33 (1) 44 69 99 21 [email protected] Patricia Fulton International Programs, USDA ‐ CSREES 1400 Independence Ave. SW Stop 2201 Washington, DC 20250‐2201 (202) 720‐3801 [email protected]

Julie Funk Associate Professor, Michigan State University B51 A Food Safety East Lansing, MI 48824‐1302 (517) 884‐2081 [email protected] Katie Garcia Agriculture Development, USAID 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20523‐2110 (202) 712‐1388 [email protected] Donna Garren VP Food Safety Programmes Consumer Goods Forum (571) 285‐5655 [email protected] Chris Geith Assistant Provost & Executive Director, MSU Global Michigan State University 51 Kellogg Center East Lansing, MI 48824‐1022 (517) 353‐0856 [email protected] Gustavo González Director of Technical Services, Silliker US (708) 957‐7878 ext. 226 [email protected] Lalith Goonatilake Director, UNIDO 43 (1) 26026‐3859 [email protected] Keith Greenaway Vice President ANSI –ASQ National Accreditation Board (703) 836‐0025 ext. 203














41


Brendan Guenther Director, vuDAT, Michigan State University 101 Wills House East Lansing, MI 48824‐1050 (517) 432‐0711 [email protected] Robert Halman County Extension Director / AG Agent University of Florida IFAS 14700 Immokalee Rd. Naples, FL 34120‐1468 (239) 398‐2896 [email protected] Steven Hanson Chairperson, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics Executive Director, Global Food and Society Alliance Michigan State University 202 Agriculture Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 355‐4567 [email protected] David Harlan Director, Global Animal Health and Food Safety Cargill (952) 742‐6095 [email protected] Craig Henry SVP COO, Grocery Manufacturers of America (202) 639‐5983 [email protected] Rockfeler Herisse Senior Alliance Advisor, USAID 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20523‐2110 (202) 712‐4229 [email protected]

Gwyn Heyboer Sr. Instructional Designer / Project Manager Michigan State University 51 Kellogg Center East Lansing, MI 48824‐1022 (517) 432‐5131 [email protected] Jill Hollingsworth VP Food Safety, Food Marketing Institute 2345 Crystal Dr. Ste. 800 Arlington, VA 22202 (202) 452‐8444 [email protected] Marlynne Hopper Economic Affairs Officer, World Trade Organization 00 41 22 739 6539 [email protected] Karlease Kelly Assistant Administrator USDA – Food Safety and Inspection Service (202) 205‐0194 [email protected] Sunnie Kim Creative Technologies, Michigan State University 51 Kellogg Center East Lansing, MI 48824‐1022 (517) 432‐6738 [email protected] Jan Kranghand Senior Department Manager, Metro Group PO Box 230362 40089 Duesseldorf ‐ Germany 49 (211) 969‐9162 jan.kranghand@metro‐mgb.com John Kukoly Senior Technical Marketing British Retail Consortium (905) 932‐9469














42


John Lamb Sr. Agribusiness Specialist, World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 (202) 473‐1000 [email protected] Sean Leahy eProducer, Michigan State University 101 Wills House East Lansing, MI 48824‐1050 (517) 432‐0711 ext. 107 [email protected] Mary Malaspina Governmental Affairs Michigan State University 499 S. Capitol St. SW Suite 500A Washington, DC 20003‐4013 (202) 678‐4000 Jennifer Maurer Livestock Trade Advisor, USAID (202) 219‐0476 [email protected] Cindy McCourt IDCM Innovations Consultant, MSU Global 12162 Queens Brigade Dr. Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 803‐4621 [email protected] Mary C. Ott Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator USAID’s Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20523 [email protected]

Mickey Parish Professor & Chair, Department of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Maryland 0112 Skinner Bldg. College Park, MD 20742 (301) 405‐0773 [email protected] Larry Paulson Agriculture Development, USAID 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20523‐2110 (202) 712‐0506 [email protected] Chris Peterson Director, Product Center, Michigan State University 83 Agriculture Hall East Lansing, MI 48824‐1039 (517) 355‐1813 [email protected] LuAnn Phillips Consultant, eXtension Virtual Worlds 34 Sara Jen Dr. Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 793‐0609 [email protected] Mark Pickup Independent Consultant, GFSI France [email protected] Jeffrey Riedinger Dean, International Studies and Programs Michigan State University 207 International Center East Lansing, MI 48824‐1035 (517) 355‐2352 [email protected]













43


Aisha Salazar Graduate Research Assistant, Kansas State University (703) 869‐3152 [email protected] Rosario Santos Office Manager, The Consumer Goods (301) 563‐3383 Chuck Seaman Senior Manager, Johnson Diversey (262) 631‐4930 [email protected] Jan Singleton National Program Leader, USDA‐CSREES 1400 Independence Ave. SW Stop 2201 Washington, DC 20250‐2201 (202) 401‐1954 [email protected] Gary Smith Technical Director, SQF Institute (202) 220‐0665 [email protected] Kevin Swoffer Director, KPS Resources, Ltd 3 Laburnum Dr. Larkfield Aylesford Kent ME20 6LX 44 (0) 7950232503 [email protected] Deepa Thiagarajan Assistant Professor, Michigan State University 319 Agriculture Hall East Lansing, MI 48824‐1039 (517) 432‐8211 [email protected]

Karen Vignare Director, MSU Global, Michigan State University 51 Kellogg Center East Lansing, MI 48824‐1022 (517) 455‐7554 [email protected] Victor Vuchic Open Educational Resources The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation 2121 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 (650) 234‐4500 Fax (650) 234‐4501 Mary Anne Walker Director of Business Development MSU Global, Michigan State University 51 Kellogg Center East Lansing, MI 48824‐1022 (517) 432‐9184 [email protected] Kevin Walker Professor, Michigan State University 165 Food Safety & Toxicology Bldg. East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 432‐3100 ext. 151 [email protected] Isabel Walls National Program Leader, USDA (202) 401‐6357 [email protected] John Whims Director of External Relations Global Food and Society Alliance International Studies and Programs Michigan State University 207 International Center East Lansing, MI 48824‐1035 (517) 355‐2352 [email protected]














Kathy Wybourn Director of Food Safety Det Norske Veritas Certification 10760 West 143rd St. # 65 Orland Park, IL 60462 (708) 590‐6289 [email protected]



45


F. Status Update on Pilot Projects – February 2010 From August 2009 to January 2010, the Food Safety Knowledge Network project initiated five pilot projects (three face‐to‐face pilot projects and two online pilot projects) and has completed four of these pilot projects. The FSKN Pilot projects are:

1. Chennai, India – Face‐to‐face workshop conducted in partnership with USAID. 2. India – Online pilot project conducted in partnership with METRO Cash and Carry. 3. Cairo, Egypt – Face‐to‐face pilot project conducted in partnership with Makro (METRO) and

UNIDO. 4. Shanghai, China – Face‐to‐face pilot project conducted in partnership with The Coca‐Cola

Company. 5. India – Online pilot project conducted in partnership with Tata Tea (in process).

This report will provide a brief overview of the major findings from these FSKN pilot projects.

Chennai, India – September 2009 • 74 participants from 25 Indian companies and 6 public sector organizations participated in this

3‐day training program.

• 72 participants completed pre‐ and post‐assessments of knowledge. Overall results demonstrated an improvement in scores from 54.9% correct on the pre‐assessments to 65.6% correct on the post‐assessments (a 19.3% increase in performance during the course of the workshop).

• It also is noteworthy that the full version of the assessment tools (132 question on each of 2 different forms) is quite challenging to participants of all levels of experience.

As illustrated in the following table, participants demonstrated improved knowledge in all 13 areas under the Basic Level for Food Manufacture competency framework.

Module Mean # Items

Mean Pre‐Assmt

Mean Post‐Assmt

% Increase

1. Facilities & Environment 15 10.44 (69.6%) 11.81 (78.7%) 13.1 2. Personal Hygiene 12 5.71 (47.6%) 7.64 (63.7%) 33.9 3. Water Quality 7.5 4.12 (55.0%) 5.23 (69.7%) 26.8 4. Pest Control 10.5 6.28 (59.8%) 7.24 (68.9%) 15.2 5. Cleaning & Disinfection 10.5 5.73 (54.6%) 6.04 (57.5%) 5.4 6. Specifications 7.5 5.20 (69.4%) 5.58 (74.5%) 7.4 7. Product Contamination Control 7.5 4.66 (62.1%) 5.64 (75.2%) 21.1 8. Control of Food Hazards ‐ General 9 4.61 (51.2%) 5.85 (65.0%) 26.9 9. Control of Food Hazards ‐ Allergens 9 3.95 (43.9%) 4.90 (54.5%) 24.2 10. Incident Management 13.5 6.98 (51.7%) 8.34 (61.8%) 19.4 11. Corrective Action 12 5.68 (47.4%) 7.45 (62.1%) 31.1 12. Control of Nonconforming Product 10.5 5.28 (50.2%) 6.65 (63.4%) 26.1 13. Traceability 7.5 3.86 (51.5%) 4.86 (64.8%) 25.7


46


• Statistical analyses demonstrated that participant performance was significantly influenced by o age (older participants performed better than younger participants) o educational attainment (participants with graduate degrees performed better) o previous training (participants who had previously had attended formal food safety

training programs performed better than those who had not).

• Regardless of the previous factors, participants from all levels of previous experience demonstrated significant improvement in knowledge after participating in the FSKN training program.

India Online Pilot – August 2009 – January 2010 • Materials identical to those used during the Chennai training program were made available

online in a variety of formats (flash video, audio, video for iPod, PDF, etc.).

• 63 participants identified by METRO Cash & Carry, India at the beginning of the project.

• 33 participants completed pre‐assessment at the beginning of program (reliable internet access was an issue for several participants).

• As of January 2010, 26 participants had used online learning resources and completed a post‐assessment.

• Among participants completed pre‐ and post‐assessments of knowledge, results demonstrated an improvement in scores from 67% correct on the pre‐assessments to 72% correct on the post‐assessments (a 7.5% increase in performance during the course of the workshop).

• Additional statistical analyses necessary to properly evaluate these results.

• Surveys administered at end of program to obtain participant feedback. There was very strong overall support for the value and effectiveness of the FSKN pilot program.

Cairo, Egypt – November 2009 • The Egypt FSKN Pilot Program utilized the materials produced for the Chennai pilot as the base.

These materials (training modules, assessment tools) were modified slightly and translated to Arabic for the Egypt pilot.

• A train‐the‐trainer approach was used, wherein trainers associated with the UNIDO eTrace project participated in a formal training program and then in turn provided training to the participants.

• 36 participants completed pre‐ and post‐assessments of knowledge. Overall results demonstrated an improvement in scores from 59.7% correct on the pre‐assessments to 69.5% correct on the post‐assessments (a 16.3% increase in performance during the course of the workshop).

• In addition to FSKN training for food professionals, the Egypt pilot also is testing the GFSI Global Markets Company Protocol for Basic Level for Food Manufacture. This will enable us to correlate company performance with knowledge of their food safety managers.


47


Shanghai, China – December 2009 • 142 participants in a 4‐day training program/conference sponsored by The Coca‐Cola Company

(42 Coke, 14 bottlers, 6 Coke customers, 57 suppliers, 12 sub‐suppliers, 6 others).

• In addition to FSKN modules, the training program included several topics dealing with pre‐harvest food safety (Good Agricultural Practices), other prerequisite programs, and the ISO 22000 food safety management system.

• FSKN training modules based on the materials used in Chennai, with Chinese translation of training modules and assessment tools and simultaneous translation throughout the workshop.

• 113 participants completed pre‐ and post‐assessments of knowledge. Overall results demonstrated an improvement in scores from 77.2% correct on the pre‐assessments to 81.9% correct on the post‐assessments (a 6.1% increase in performance during the course of the workshop). [Note that these data are not comparable to the other pilots because the assessment instruments were shortened.]

• Statistical analyses demonstrated that participant performance was significantly influenced by o educational attainment (participants with graduate degrees performed better) o previous training (participants who had previously had attended formal food safety

training programs performed better than those who had not) o organization type (Coca‐Cola employees performed at the highest level, sub‐suppliers at

the lowest level, with Coke suppliers and customers intermediate in performance).

• Regardless of the previous factors, participants from all levels of previous experience demonstrated significant improvement in knowledge after participating in the FSKN training program.

• Groups with the lowest performance on the pre‐assessment tended to show the greatest improvement. For example, performance improvements were

o Coca‐Cola employees – 3.7% o Bottlers – 6.7% o Suppliers – 7.0% o Sub‐Suppliers – 9.5%


48


G. OER Technology

1. Review of the FSKN Correlate Module Working draft retrieved: March 2, 2010 The source code for the Drupal Correlate Module will be refined, documented, and made available through SourceForge. The code is also available upon request.

Purpose of the module A drupal module to let you define a set of standards against which to correlate content and to establish the relations between the content and standards.

Module workflow 1. Setting Up a Framework and Standards

a. Add framework view b. List of frameworks c. List subjects d. List standards e. Edit standard f. Add standard

2. Assigning Correlation Standard to a Node a. Node edit b. Node correlation standard view: This shows the standards assigned to the node.

3. Module Design The design is tightly couple to Drupal. About 90% of the code depends on the Drupal environment which makes it hard to port the module as a reusable component into other PHP frameworks (such Wordpress) without major redevelopment.

a. Module Database Tables i. Relational database design


49


2. Integrating DiscoverEd with: Software Specification Document Draft 0.5 Working draft retrieved: March 2, 2010

Introduction Food Safety Knowledge Network (FSKN), a project of MSUglobal, is planning to collect content (documents) related to food safety from open education resources (OER) and provide them in its competency test service. FSKN will review each document and perform correlation analysis before presenting the collected documents to its users in a search index. The search results will present the source, license, subject tags, and correlation information.

FSKN has decided to integrate DiscoverEd (an experimental project from ccLearn) with FSKN’s Drupal website to provide the above food safety competency service.

The DiscoverEd application has two main parts;

1. Crawler The crawler is a service that crawls given resource url, extract the meta data and index them in a searchable index. It can extract rss, opml or oai‐pmh meta data types. But according to DiscoverEd opml and oai‐pmh resources are the best fit formats. If the resource is not in opml or oai‐pmh format the crawler process the resource as an rss/atom feed.

2. Search Page The search page is a web interface to search the indexed documents by the crawler. The search results contains curator, education level, language, license and subject information by default as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. DiscoverEd Search results

The FSKN and DoscoveryED integration project is here by referred to as "FsknEd."


50


FsknEd User Stories This section describes the user stories related to FsknEd.

Post documents to FSKN

While crawler indexing the extracted resource, the crawler will post the extracted document to the FSKN drupal website via a Representational State Transfer (REST) API.

Assign a correlation

The food safety expert will perform correlation analysis on the posted data and will manually assign correlations to show various standards using the FSKN correlate admin interface.

Search correlated documents

Upon performing a search on the FsknEd search page, FsknEd will present the matching search results along with source (curator), education level, license, subject tags and correlations information. Upon clicking on a search result, FsknEd will show a detail page (this page will reside in FSKN Drupal site) with full correlation information with a link to the original source.

FsknEd Highlevel Design The DiscoverEd application is developed using Java language and the FSKN application is built on Drupal using PHP language. Therefore FsknEd will have two application servers. The customized DiscoverEd application running on Tomcat server and the enhanced FSKN application running on PHP server. However both the applications will be served to users by using a single Apache web server.

The customized DiscoverEd server will host the customized crawler and the customized search interface. The crawler will post the extracted data into the FSKN site while indexing. The customized search interface will have the same "look and feel" as FSKN and the search result will include correlation score fetched from the FSKN using web services.

The enhanced FSKN will include two new modules to service FsknEd. A REST web service module to create nodes using the posted documents by the crawler and a correlation analysis module to manually add correlations to the posted documents.

Figure 4 shows high‐level implementation of the user stories described in the previous section.


51


Figure 4. Implementation of User Stories



FsknEd Components

1. REST Client This component will be integrated to the crawler code to post the extracted data information to the FSKN using REST API.

DiscoverEd Lucene document's indexed Fields

• segment

• digest

• date

• contentLength

• type

• primaryType

• subType

• host

• site

• url

• content

• title

• tstamp

• feed

• boost

• _ccl_source

• _ccl_url

• _dct_creator

• _dct_description

• _dct_format

• _dct_subject

• _dct_title

• _dct_type

• _rdf_type

• _ccl_hasCurator

Proposed structure of the FsknEd's drupal node (document): (Tentative node structure. We are in the process of identifying a better intercepting point to retrieve a unique like dc:identifier)

• digest:MD5 key of the source document

• site: site of the source document

• host: host of the source document

• url: _ccl_url of the source document ‐ unique

• title: _dct_title of the source document

• authors: _dct_creator of the source document

• subject: _dct_subject of the source document

• type:_dct_type of the source document

• body: _dct_description of the source document

• tstamp: extracted time stamp

• format: _dct_format of the source document

2. REST Service API This component will be integrated to the FSKN Drupal code to handle REST calls to create and update nodes using posted data by the crawler. It will also provide an interface to obtain correlation scores of a given list of documents. REST Service will be secured using Drupal's user authentication. When FsknEd REST Service makes a call, it will login as a Drupal user programmatically and make the call.

3. Correlations Creator This component will be integrated to the FSKN Drupal code to manage the correlations on posted documents.


53


4. Search Interface A customized search interface will be implemented to show index results and there correlations along with other meta information.

4.1 FsknEd Search User Interface

4.2 FsknEd Search Results User Interface

Refactored FsknEd search results with correlations. User will be able to see more information about the correlation by clicking the correlation text. It will take the user to the Drupal node of the respective document with the detailed information about the correlations.

4.3 Daily harvesting and updating

FsknEd crawler will be scheduled to run mid night everyday to add for new resources and update current resources.



H. Logic Model and Program Charts

FSKN Phase I Logic Model



Overall Initiative Program Chart



Phase I Planning Grant Program Chart

F S K N Phase I Program Evaluation 03 03 10

Documents

Transcript of F S K N Phase I Program Evaluation 03 03 10