140 likes | 366 Views
LMS Selection Project: Update to UCIST. 25 June 2010 (postponed from 28 May) Andrea Chappell, for the project team. Update topics. Project timeline RFP status Open Systems - issues, policy decisions, etc. Who/What, Why, 3 rd party support, migration OLE student survey results
E N D
LMS Selection Project: Update to UCIST 25 June 2010 (postponed from 28 May) Andrea Chappell, for the project team
Update topics • Project timeline • RFP status • Open Systems - issues, policy decisions, etc. • Who/What, Why, 3rd party support, migration • OLE student survey results • Other notes • 6 areas for input from UCIST
First: 6 areas for UCIST input • RFP evaluation criteria. Need approval. • Open systems. Reasons NOT for UW? • Develop or not? If so, what governance? • Add-on functionality – who decides? • Externally hosted versus locally installed. • Opinions or comments? • Migration/pilot – will ask for resources.
Project timeline • Phase I – end with recommendation to UCIST Feb. 2011 • RFI: April – June 2010 • RFP: July – Nov 2010 (submit mid July, review by Nov) • Info collect: Jun – Nov 2010 (Contact schools, add-on tools, etc.) • Policy decisions: Jun 2010 – Jan 2011 (open systems, dev, hosting, procedures changes, etc.) • Test and assess short list: Nov – Dec 2010 • Phase II – implementation planning, pilot, migration, to May 2012 • Pre-pilot (very small group): Winter 2011 • Pilot (real use): Mar. 2011 – July 2011 • First wave of migration: July – Aug 2011 (for Sep 2011) • Final migrations: Sept 2011 – March 2012
Pre-pilot (Winter 2011) • Evaluate criteria in practice, processes, CEL templates, etc. • CEL committed to W11 pilot of short list (1 or 2 systems), 3 courses in each. • CEL will assign 1-2 FTEs in F10/W11 to this assessment pilot. • IST/CTE need to determine parallel campus course plan.
RFP - status • Re-developing criteria, developing demo scenarios (vendor/products through paces) • Evaluation assessment weightings • Functionality (25%) • Interface Design (20%) • System Integration (20%) • Service and Support (15%) • Cost (10%) • Other (10%)
Open systems: Who/what • Western: RFI in fall, consider Bb NG, open source. • UVic: Moodle since 2007, from Bb (WebCT since 4.1). Small pocket of Sakai. • Queen’s: To Moodle from WebCT after a year in 2 pilots, 10+ courses, 1000’s students. • Windsor: Sakai 2.5 since 2006, to 2.7 in Fall; moved from homegrown Notes app. • Virginia Tech: Had Sakai for 1-2 years for collab and project groups. To be sole LMS in Fall 2010.
Open systems: Why (drivers)? • No vendor lock-in • Customization • No license fee (but adoption not free) • Products adhere to industry standards • Development contributes to global benefit • Philosophical alignments • Poor support from Blackboard (VTech, UVic)
Open system: Use of 3rd party • Not much use of 3rd party company for implementation, migration, support • Almost all in-house, using own staff • Not much development happening for respondents, only Windsor • Much development by community (650 modules for Moodle, many for Sakai)
Migration (not unique to OS) • Drain on resources. • Main obstacles are differences in structure, data format, modules. • Most data type not converted. Quizzes, discussion forums must be recreated. Significant course redesign. • Used existing staff, some student hires, varied a lot. Generally, need lots of help!
OLE student survey results Sneak peak … • Look and feel (some awkwardness of interface) • Tech (frames are so 90s, Javascript) • Integration with Quest, Nexus (hm, portal-like) • Access to materials (all syllabi, materials from other courses, access after end of course) • Discussion forums not as good as others outside ANGEL • Mobile access • More from calendar (integrated with other calendars) • Better live/synchronous tools, such as chat
Other notes • Shahed’sManSci course project (option) • Communications – web site coming! • Increase transparency • Web site under development, then a launch and keep up to date with progress • Staffing • Liwana’s contract extended; Jan will start a gradual return on July 19th
6 areas for input from UCIST • RFP evaluation criteria. Need approval. • Open systems. Reasons NOT for UW? • Develop or not? If so, what governance? • Add-on functionality – who decides? • Externally hosted versus locally installed. • Opinions or comments? • Migration/pilot – will ask for resources.