140 likes | 252 Views
Next Gen LMS @ CU-Boulder. This Gen. Technology: Blackboard (WebCT) CE8 Service: Courses in SIS (until this spring) All standard tools plus anti-plagiarism powerlink Automatic provisioning incl. drops/adds Provisions to rollback course content in case of “oops” But “self archive”.
E N D
This Gen Technology: Blackboard (WebCT) CE8 Service: • Courses in SIS (until this spring) • All standard tools plus anti-plagiarism powerlink • Automatic provisioning incl. drops/adds • Provisions to rollback course content in case of “oops” • But “self archive”
This Gen (cont.) Support: • Service Delivery – create courses and assign proper permissions for instructors and designers. • DACs – Help faculty with tools, content, and making most effective use of technology (incl. LMS). • Escalated Support – Last point of issue escalation.
This Gen (cont.) Operations: • Application Manager • DBA (Oracle) Funding: • Adequate • ~2 FTE plus DACs • License, equip. maint., equip. R&R
Baby Step Spring 2009 – Allow non-SIS “Courses” • Establish through Service Delivery • Support through Escalated Support (cannot provide same level of assistance as DACs)
Other LMSes on Campus All for really good business reasons: • Physics (Moodle) • Leeds School of Business (Blackboard 8) • Law School (TWEN – hosted) • Others ?? No support from Central IT
LMS in the Campus IT Strategic Plan CU Boulder should develop a model for identifying, critically evaluating, and strategically supporting emerging web-based learning tools. This model should be adopted by faculty and support personnel as they consider technologies to employ in their teaching, research, and service work. A campus- wide committee should be formed to identify promising educational technologies, assessing their potential for adoption, and communicating their findings to the campus. Link
Bottom Line Goals Change the Technology: • Flexible framework • Suite of “plug in” tools • Allow customizations & in-house written functionality. Change the Service: • Customization • Everybody in the fold (campus learning technology ecosystem?)
Result • “Team” to establish functional needs and evaluate options. • Significant additional funding for LMS: • +3 FTE for support and development/customizations. • Additional funding for infrastructure
The Vision Coming into Focus Campus LMS “infrastructure”: • One centrally provided framework • “Pluggable” tools; even to/from another framework • Aggregated Course “portal” • Data integration service – feed any framework (within reason – IMS?) Support, Support, Support: • Incl. help assessing effectiveness
The Vision (cont.) LMS framework gets early consideration when contemplating new needs: • Collaboration tools • Surveys • Simple workflow • Etc. E.g. ARPAC (Side Story) Implication: LMS is an ERP - Manage it accordingly
Status • Faculty team process completing – decision to RFP. • ARPAC going live on hosted Bb9 (what have we done?!?) • Testing concept of Business Service built on Enterprise Service (See Aside). • Wish to pilot something in Fall ’09 • Turn off WebCT CE6 Fall ‘10
Aside Enterprise Service Business Service Responsibility of business unit (must provide) • Program Management (strategy) • Escalated Support • Application Management • Development • System Operations/Hosting • Call in-take • Service Delivery • Database Operations Business unit can provide or contract with central IT
Key Questions Hire, or use $$ to contract and host?