1 / 17

“Replace UW-ACE” Project

“Replace UW-ACE” Project. Andrea Chappell, IST. What’s Happening?. How to go about finding a replacement What we’re looking for Other universities’ choices and changes in the LMS market Understanding options T he time line. The Core Team. IST Jan Willwerth Sean Warren Lorne Connell

meagan
Download Presentation

“Replace UW-ACE” Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. “Replace UW-ACE” Project Andrea Chappell, IST

  2. What’s Happening? • How to go about finding a replacement • What we’re looking for • Other universities’ choices and changes in the LMS market • Understanding options • The time line

  3. The Core Team • IST • Jan Willwerth • Sean Warren • Lorne Connell • SorenaTiba • CEL • David Bean • Aldo Caputo • Library: Sandra Keys • OPD: Susan Shifflett • CTE • Jane Holbrook • Mary Power • Faculty • Peter Carr • James Skidmore • Students • Nick Soave (VP Ed.) • STAC updates • Consultant: LiwanaBringelson

  4. The Resource Team • Shawn Gilbertson, Bookstore (publishers, e-books) • Trevor Holmes, CTE (outcomes-based assessment) • Katherine Lithgow, CTE (e-portfolio) • Mark Morton, CTE (web 2.0, new learning tech applications)

  5. Purchase process: RFI, RFP • Request for Information (May 2010) • informal estimates on prices or specifications for products we have not yet decided to buy • “beat the bushes”, test our specifications • Request for Proposal (August 2010) • complex requirements including special capabilities, supplier record, strategies • Information to project members only!

  6. What we are looking for • What it can do (functionality) • Producer and product stability and promise • Supportability • Includes support from producer • Scalability • Extensibility (to do more things)

  7. Basic Functionality Features we assume the modern LMS has • Creating and organizing content • Activities (quizzes, assignment upload, discussions, surveys, blog, wiki, RSS) • Communications (announcement, email, chat) • Course management (grades, tracking)

  8. Specialized Functionality Things we do not assume every LMS has • Rich team builder and team tools • Tiered admin and roles (shared support) • Repositories (shared materials and activities) • Algorithmic quizzes • Automation (e.g., identifying at risk students) • Course templates • Secure exam environment

  9. New/improved functionality • Math notation; integration of computational and symbolic (e.g., MapleTA) • Audio/video capabilities • Presence detection and communications • Mobile support • Outcomes-based assessment • ePortfolio

  10. Integrations – data/software • Local data (course, rosters, students) • 3rd party software (Turnitin, Wimba Voice, eReserves, iClicker) • Adding other 3rd party software • Customizing processes (e.g., combining courses, creating archives) • Reports from data in the LMS

  11. Other major factors • Accessibility • Standards (various IMS, SCORM) for data exchange and integration • Migration of existing courses • Support and service • Pricing

  12. Other universities’ choices (Not comprehensive, just examples) • WLU, Guelph, McMaster – Desire2Learn • Brock, Windsor – Sakai • Queen’s, UVic– Moodle • Many with Blackboard/WebCT

  13. Changes in LMS market • Blackboard biggest, with WebCT and Angel acquired, but decreasing • Moodle and Sakai (open source) and D2L increasing • Blackboard bought two e-learning tools, Wimba and Elluminate • New LMSs, many based on social tools

  14. Understanding options • LMS selection itself, plus … • How to extend functionality – when to buy, whether to build • Who to host? Us? Others? Pros and cons • How to incorporate cloud tools (Google Apps, Live@Edu, twitter, Facebook, etc.)?

  15. Final words • Coming from “good place”, hard to replace • Want the LMS to be easy and intuitive • Also allow power users to expand • Adopt new tools for learning, integrated to the LMS • Options on how to grow (buy, build, rent from cloud)

  16. The time line • Wrap up RFP soon • More open communications once RFP is closed • Recommendation to sponsor (UCIST) late February • Spring pilot • Migrations (how much?) for fall

  17. Questions or comments? Thank you! http://av.uwaterloo.ca/uwace/lms_review/

More Related