VLE Review: from WebCT to Moodle 2.0

1. LERSIG 4/5/2011 Clifton Kandler A.C. Kandler@gre.ac.uk VLE Review:  from WebCT to Moodle 2.0 Clifton KandlerWeb Services Manager A.C. Kandler@gre.ac.uk

2. Background • WebCT Licence since 1999 • Independent systems in several schools • A very tightly integrated set of central systems • A small central team of six responsible for training, system admin, support of VLE + Portal + E-portfolio + LMS +++ • 2000+ active WebCT courses • Review began in spring 2009 and decision made in July 2010.

3. View of a VLE adopted -Three overlapping elements • Repository – The ability to provide course related documents, links to external web related material, reading lists and other digital content. • Course management– Tools to support the submission of course work, organisation of students into groups or allow students to arrange a meeting with a tutor. • Teaching and learning tools– Tools to support assessment, communication with and between students.

4. Key Findings from Review 1 • Where schools have had the resources to develop their own use of technology the focus has been on improving processes associated with teaching the management of courses. • Effective use of a VLE is dependent on the skills of the lecturer. Not the VLE used. • Strong desire from staff for examples and support in the use of technology in learning and teaching supported by evidence of their effectiveness. • View that senior management are unaware of the potential of technology, in learning and teaching largely due to not having used it in their own practice.

5. Key Findings from Review 2 • Need for a mechanism to enable users to communicate and prioritise their requirements for technology to support learning, teaching and administration. • Need for a mechanism to disseminate practice/systems/processes developed within a particular school which could be of benefit across the institution. • Concerns of academics are primarily focused on how technology can be used to automate administrative tasks and reduce workload.

6. Reasons for choosing Moodle • Ease of use • Ability to develop independently of vendor • Acceptance by all Schools • Cost

7. Stage 1: to December 2010 Installation of test system Initial training of champions Training of central team Development of School migration plans Stage 2: to August 2011 New Moodle courses developed by teaching teams Training of staff Development of the technical infrastructure September 2011: WebCT retired from service Stage 3: August 2011 onwards Continued enhancement of Moodle courses September 2012: All legacy VLEs replaced by Moodle Timetable

8. Key concerns for implementing Moodle • Capitalising on interest/momentum generated during review • Countering the fear of change • Retraining staff • Migration of content between systems • A new version of a system • Scope creep • Where do we get support?

9. Key issues with Moodle (2.0) • A new system = bugs • Flexibility = complexity in terms of administration • Many of the plug-ins available for earlier versions not yet ready for 2.0 • Bedroom PHP developers • Managing expectations • Robustness of the support network

10. Things we have got right • Deciding it was not just about moving to a new VLE • Making the process a partnership between Schools, and ourselves. • Deciding not to migrate content • Communication generally – not just teaching staff but with everyone potentially affected. • Deciding to go straight to Moodle 2.0 • Deciding to go for external hosting • Focusing on staff awareness/training as opposed to technical development • Looking at changing our processes and not just the system

11. Project Site http://www.gre.ac.uk/offices/ils/cis/projects/moodle

12. Questions