USC: From Blackboard to … ?

1. USC: From Blackboard to … ?

2. About usc

6. 39,958students

7. 3,563full-time faculty

9. “[E]ven though USC is the world leader in digital and immersive media technologies for education, entertainment, and other purposes, USC will not franchise its distinctive undergraduate educational experience online or through satellite campuses abroad …”

10. “… The highly social aspect of the undergraduate years will remain centered on our campuses. It will be enhanced by technology, but never replaced by technology.” – USC President C.L. Max Nikias (2/13)

11. Centralized Federated

13. Maintaining Your Classes in an Emergency

14. Key Points “If travel to campus is difficult we will announce an electronic way for you to teach your students in their residence halls or homes using a combination of Blackboard, conference calls and other technologies.” “Please make sure now that all your classes are activated in Blackboard with your name as instructor of record and with the class syllabus. Whether or not you use Blackboard regularly these preparations will be crucial in an emergency.”

15. Our Initial Response: Bb • We auto-provision a Bb course for every course in the schedule of classes that has an assigned instructor or teaching assistant. • Courses are unavailable by default. • We have an institution license for Blackboard Mobile Learn.

16. Why Not Managed Hosting? • Our data center services the entire Pacific Rim. • Colo • HPCC • Shoah VHI • Bb is only a part of USC’s much larger business continuity strategy.

17. DRing the Entire Enterprise

18. LMS Evaluation process

19. Why Evaluate LMSs? It is a standard practice in academia to periodically reevaluate LMS options and opportunities, particularly in light of • Recent shifts in market share for proprietary LMS software vendors, • The entrance of new LMS vendors into the marketplace, and • The recent emergence of open-source LMS solutions.

20. USC’s LMS evaluation is a due diligence effort. Blackboard will continue to be USC’s enterprise-level LMS until 2015 … and possibly beyond.

21. USC’s LMS Evaluation Process

22. Step One Environmental scan

23. Local (Non-Enterprise) LMS Usage at USC • Blackboard 9 • Viterbi School of Engineering DEN • Moodle (2U) • Rossier School of Education MAT • School of Social Work MSW • Moodle (Embanet) • School of Policy Planning and Development MPA • Others Photo: Philip Channing

24. The Enterprise LMS World at Large: 2013 • Effects of global economy. • New entrants. • New or expanded concepts (see definitions on the next slides). • Proprietary, open source, and community source products. • Locally hosted and SaaSsolutions.

25. Step Two LMS NEEDS ASSESSMENT

26. 9 Task Forces • Analytics and Data Mining • Compliance and Accessibility • Feature Requirements: Instructors and Teaching Assistants • Feature Requirements: Students • Feature Requirements: School System Administrators and Support • Feature Requirements: Non-Semester-Based or Non-SIS Courses and Programs and Research • Infrastructure and Disaster Recovery • Security • Training, Documentation, and Support

27. Three Assumptions • The ideal LMS may not yet exist. • A campus-wide LMS needs assessment may identify gaps unrelated to tools and technology (e.g., knowledge/skills, motivation, and organizational processes). • ‘Abilities’ trump tools.

28. LMS Needs Assessment Report The task forces identified 350 needs, of which 36 were both highly-rated and unmet in Bb at the time of the assessment.

29. Step Three Request for information

30. From Needs to RFI • In fall 2012 ITS created and distributed a “request for information” (RFI) to the enterprise-level LMS vendors currently being used by our peer institutions. • The RFI’s content was based on data obtained • during USC’s LMS needs assessment, • from peer institutions such as Duke University and the University of Texas – Austin, • from independent learning management system consulting companies, and • from USC’s certification and compliance training platform evaluation process.

31. Vendors Invited to Submit

32. RFI Evaluation Process • An ‘initial evaluation group’ of Blackboard stakeholdersreviewed the submitted RFIs. • Members: ITS Blackboard staff, school or academic unit Blackboard domain administrators, and faculty volunteers from the Blackboard Advisory Committee. • ITS staff also evaluated the submitted RFIs to determine if the vendors’ responses met ITS' expectations. • The initial evaluation group then voted (via a Qualtrics survey) on which LMS vendors they suggest should be invited to do on-campus demonstrations.

33. Vendors Invited to Present

34. Step Four Vendor demos: faculty review and its evaluation

35. On-Campus Demonstrations In April 2013, these three vendors were invited to campus to demonstrate their LMSes to, and answer questions from, three separate constituent groups: • A task force comprised of one curricular dean-recommended faculty member from each USC school or academic unit as well as representatives from the undergraduate and graduate student governments. • USC's Information Technology Services (ITS) leadership. • USC's IT managers and staff.

36. Vendor Demo Guidelines • The vendor demonstrations were scenario-based and scaffolded. • The vendors were required to present a live, in-person, on-campus demonstration of the latest, publicly available, general release of the vendor's learning management system platform. • The vendors were not allowed to discuss plans for future product features or releases.

37. Vendor Demo Guidelines (Cont’d) • The vendors were not allowed to use PowerPoint or any other slide-based presentation tools or techniques. • The demonstration could only include the tools, apps, and extensions that are included in the install of the vendor's product or that the vendor was willing to provide to USC and its users at no cost in perpetuity.

38. Faculty & ITS Evaluation • Participants were provided with sample instructor accounts on each vendor's LMS platform and asked to evaluate each vendor's presentation and platform through an online survey. • Additional input was also solicited from ITS subject matter experts on additional dimensions of each vendor's LMS platform including security, infrastructure, support, and staffing requirements.

39. Results In the end, neither the survey results nor the individual feedback from ITS subject matter experts support excluding any particular vendor from further consideration.

40. Next steps

41. Next Steps: Fall 2013 • RFP will be distributed in October. • We will make our final recommendation to USC leadership this winter.

42. USC’s LMS Evaluation Process

43. Contact Me Patrick Crispen USC Center for Scholarly Technology pcrispen@usc.edu (213) 740-8898

44. USC: From Blackboard to … ?