1 / 17

LMS Selection Project: Update to STAC

LMS Selection Project: Update to STAC. 03 June 2010 Andrea Chappell, for the project team. Update topics. Project timeline (DRAFT) RFI results RFP status Open Systems - issues, policy decisions, etc. Canadian universities: Why, 3 rd party support, migration

zytka
Download Presentation

LMS Selection Project: Update to STAC

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. LMS Selection Project: Update to STAC 03June 2010 Andrea Chappell, for the project team

  2. Update topics • Project timeline (DRAFT) • RFI results • RFP status • Open Systems - issues, policy decisions, etc. • Canadian universities: Why, 3rd party support, migration • Communications – web site coming! • OLE student survey results

  3. Project timeline (DRAFT) • Phase I – end with recommendation to UCIST Feb. 2011 • RFI: April – June 2010 • RFP: June – Oct 2010 (submit end June, review by Oct) • Info collection and amalgamation: June – Oct 2010 (Contact similar sized schools, what add-on tools, etc.) • Policy decisions: June 2010 – Jan 2011 (open systems, dev, hosting, procedures changes, etc.) • Phase II – implementation planning, pilot, migration, to May 2012 • Pre-pilot? (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

  4. RFI: 8 proposals

  5. RFI: Costs and Functionality • Costs hard to decipher; Wide range of responses • Vocabulary and packaging • Lots of “To Be Determined” • Functionality – companies claim to be able to do the job, and not much to eliminate them so far

  6. Technology and Standards • System software and hardware • # of instances allowed • Servers/virtual machines recommended • Browser support! • Hosted vs. locally installed? • Standards • IMS • Accessibility

  7. Integration • Campus systems (AuthN, Quest, etc.) • Applications: Wimba, <i Clicker, TurnItIn, Ares. Other campus systems, e.g., Drupal, Dspace? • Additional system of interest • ePortfolio • Content management (versioning, roll-back) • Other: specific mention of mobile platforms

  8. RFI next steps • Questions to vendors • Re-develop criteria • Other data collection • Other schools’ experiences • Questions/inputs to RFP

  9. RFP - status • As noted, re-develop criteria • Develop demo scenarios (putting vendors and products through their paces) • Assessment grid, e.g. (not real!) • Cost 25% • Functionality 25% • Migration 25% • Support 25%

  10. Open system: 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.

  11. Open system: 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)

  12. 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, only Windsor, donated to the community

  13. 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!

  14. Communications web page • Increase transparency! • Web site under development, then a launch and keep up to date with progress

  15. OLE student survey results Not ready yet, but 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

  16. Other note • Shahed’sManSci course project (option)

  17. Questions or Comments?

More Related