If you are unable to attend the presentations of the Learning Management Systems (LMS) on 27 October and 29 October, do not feel left out or dissappointed. Each of the LMS presenters have set up a sandbox for you to explore the features and functionalities of the LMS. Your feedback on each system is greatly appreciated by filling in the online questionnaire http://planning.une.edu.au/Surveys/LMSevaluation.

The sandbox for each of the LMS is as follows:
Blackboard v9  http://une-demo.blackboard.com
Desire2Learn v8.4  http://anz.desire2learn.com
Moodle v1.9  http://une.moodlesites.com/course/view.php?id=10
Sakai v2.6  http://mysakai.rsmart.com

The sandboxes for Blackboard v9 and Moodle v1.9 will be accessible from 27 October to 2 November. The sandboxes for Desire2Learn v8.4 and Sakai v2.6 will be accessible from 29 October to 4 November.

Your login details have been forwarded to you in an earlier email. If you do not have the login details, please send me an email at vicki.tan@une.edu.au or contact me at ext. 3280.

The VLE Working Group has identified four Learning Management Systems (LMS) that potentially meet the requirements of staff and students.

The four LMS will be presented to staff and students on Tuesday 27 October and Thursday 29 October. The details of the presentations are as follows:

LMS: Moodle v1.9 (presented by Netspot)
Date: Tuesday 27 October 2009
Time: 1pm to 2.15pm
Venue: Paul Barratt Lecture Theatre

LMS: Blackboard v9
Date: Tuesday 27 October 2009
Time: 2.30pm to 3.45pm
Venue: Paul Barratt Lecture Theatre

LMS: Sakai v2.6 (presented by rSmart via web conferencing)
Date: Thursday 29 October 2009
Time: 11.30am to 12.45pm
Venue: P1 Sommerville Lecture Theatre

LMS: Desire2Learn v8.4
Date: Thursday 29 October 2009
Time: 1pm to 2.15pm
Venue: P1 Sommerville Lecture Theatre

Staff members who attend the presentation sessions will have the opportunity to experience the features and functionalities of each of the systems. You will be offered the opportunity to provide feedback on how the systems meet your requirements.

For staff members who are unable to attend the scheduled LMS presentations, there will be a sandbox hosted by each of the LMS presenters where you can explore the features and functionalities of the systems before submitting your feedback online.

I encourage all staff and students to engage and provide your feedback so that your requirements are recorded and taken into consideration. It is essential that any decision meets the majority of the needs of staff and students into the future.

This is my first post after taking over the position of Project Manager from Damon Ferris.

Many thanks to both staff and students who have taken the time to complete the online Learning Management System (LMS) surveys. There were numerous comments provided by staff and students on both their current experience and recommendations for the future direction of the Virtual Learning Environment.

A summary of the major themes which emerged from the comments provided by staff members is as follows:

• A fast, reliable and easy to use system
• External hosting should be considered if it is necessary to achieve the requirement in the previous point
• A single LMS which staff can learn to use and Helpdesk can support
• Well-trained and professional Helpdesk staff who can deal with LMS queries
• Quick response time from Helpdesk on the queries raised by staff members
• Training and support for academic staff at the School level to assist with the application and use of the LMS.

From the student survey the following themes emerged:

• Simplicity, stability and reliability: A fast, reliable and easy to use LMS
• Training for academic staff in the application and use of the LMS in order to develop quality online material and be proactive online
• Resolve existing problems with eSubmission and allow multiple submissions of assignments
• Conduct workshops to teach students how to use the LMS
• Knowledgeable Helpdesk staff to answer LMS queries in a short turn-around time

The extensive data and comments collected from these 2 surveys have been used in weighting the list of criteria against which systems will be assessed.

Planning is underway for demonstrations of the LMSs by the vendors which will provide everyone with the opportunity to experience the features and functionalities of each of the systems. Staff and students who attend these sessions will be offered the opportunity to provide feedback on how the systems meet their requirements.

I will update everyone in my next post with a date for the demonstrations.

Regards,
Vicki Tan
Project Manager - VLE Review

Just a quick one this time, but an important one.

Here is a link to a handy bit of (informal) research which indicates what other Australian Universities are using for online teaching and learning. It is current as of April 2009, and includes links to the systems it lists.

http://www.masmithers.com/2009/07/10/learning-management-systems-at-australian-universities/

The list shows that Blackboard, in one form or another, is by far the most widely used system. Only one university uses Sakai (CSU), and a few use Moodle (USQ, Canberra).

What the site doesn’t show it that some of the universities listed are moving to Moodle in the near future (Central Queensland University, Australian National University) and that others are currently evaluating Moodle as a possible alternative or addition to what they currently have (Monash, University of South Australia).

It would be intersting to do this again in 2 years time and see if Blackboard still has the market cornered. UNSW is the only one moving to blackboard 9 this year, so they may pave the way for others to follow - or Moodle might get some more takeup out of the trials and pilots.

Other References:
http://content.cqu.edu.au/FCWViewer/view.do?page=9624
http://wattle.anu.edu.au/about.html
http://moodle.med.monash.edu.au/
http://moodle.unisa.cc/

Purpose

To review the University’s current Virtual Learning Environment and recommend on the preferred option for the future direction of the University’s online teaching and learning systems. The review will take into consideration staff and student needs, research needs, and the needs of partners and other external entities.

Background

UNE currently supports 3 learning management systems:

1. Blackboard CE6, which is the preferred enterprise system for the majority of units.
2. Sakai (pilot) which is being trialled in a limited number of specific courses in the Professions
3. Turing which is a specialist system in Maths and Computing Science.

The plethora of systems is problematic for students and does not provide a consistent learning environment for the University.

In September, 2008 roles and responsibilities relating to the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) were redistributed between ITD and TLC, with ITD taking on additional roles in application development and application maintenance and support.

The VLE review Steering Committee has agreed that in principle a single LMS is a desirable outcome, but agreed that a more comprehensive and detailed review of the selected solution is required.

It is apparent that the University’s LMS’s are only a component, albeit a major one, of the VLE.  The VLE includes at least four major applications (Blackboard CE, Sakai, e-Submission, TLC-Admin) and a range of smaller and/or hosted applications, infrastructure systems and sub-systems (e.g. TurnItIn, LRDB, Media Server, eSubmission) and a range of planned projects (e.g. Hive LCMS, Podcaster).  There are also a number of related applications (e.g. DEM, myUnits portlet, PDF Converter, web services).  The selection of a preferred  LMS will have significant impact on the system architecture of the VLE, and a desire has been expressed on the part of technical, administrative, management and teaching staff to improve reliability, performance and functionality across the VLE in a planned and strategically aligned way.

Scope

The review will identify and articulate student, academic, and organisational needs. It will:

• Analyse the system architecture of the University’s VLE subsystems and their interactions.
• Evaluate LMS solutions based on wide market scan and identified needs recommend the LMS solution(s) and VLE architecture that best fit the identified needs of UNE.
• Prepare a roadmap for implementation.

Terms of Reference

Within the context of UNE’s 2007-2010 Strategic Plan and the eUniversity strategic direction, the review will:

1. Identify needs and expectations for the University’s VLE through:
   • An industry scan detailing what other universities around the world are doing with their VLEs
   • Identification and articulation of student/learning needs
   • Identification and articulation of the pedagogical needs of academic staff
   • Identification and articulation of Researcher needs
   • Assessment and inclusion of the needs of University Partners
   • Identification and articulation of the VLE role in Research Supervision
   • Identification and articulation of organisational needs (intra- and inter-)
2. Analyse the University’s VLE system Architecture including examination of:
   • Current subsystems and their interactions
   • The robustness of current systems and interfaces
   • Identification of strengths, weaknesses, and unfilled needs
3. Evaluate LMS Solutions including
   • An agreed specification of LMS requirements incorporating identified needs
   • A market scan of potential LMS solutions
   • A short-list of desirable LMS solutions
   • A detailed evaluation of short-listed LMS solutions
4. Recommend on the following:
   • An approved recommendation for the VLE system architecture
   • An approved recommendation for the LMS solution(s)
   • A roadmap for the development of the University’s VLE over a 5 year horizon
   • A project initiation proposal including estimated budget and timelines for the implementation of the agreed LMS solution

The selection of a Learning Managment System (such as Blackboard or Sakai) will be performed by a Working Party comprising representatives from the ten schools and other areas of the university, with input from a Reference Group of interested parties. This working party will establish what the university needs from its LMS, and evaluate the alternatives based on that.

The working party consists of the following selfless individuals who have graciously given up their time to participate:

School Representatives:

Sue Fell (Arts)
Einar Thorsteinsson (Behavioural, Cognitive, and Social Sciences)
Paul Healy (Humanities)
Geoff Hinch / Julius van der Werf (Environmental and Rural Sciences)
Charles Watson (Science and Technology)
Heather Forrest (Law)
Alison David (Business, Education, and Public Policy)
Tony Brown (Education)
Anthea Fagan (Health)
Robyn Smyth / Sylvia Ryan (Rural Medicine)

Faculty / Directorate Representatives:

Ingrid Wijeyewardene / Melanie Fleming (Academic Skills Office)
Patrick Tobin / Belinda Tynan (E-university)
Cherry Stewart (DEHub)
Tim Goswell (ITD)
Rhonda Leece (Student Services)
Mike Littledyke (Academic Director - The Professions)
Trevor Brown (Academic Director - Arts and Sciences)
Heiko Daniel (Research representative)
Don Hine (Research representative)

This also seems like a good opportunity to call upon other interested people to sign up for the reference group.
The reference group’s role is to provide advice, consultation, and insights as the review process continues. The reference group will meet to discuss LMS and VLE-related issues and go over information as it comes up. This group’s input will be taken to the working party and directly influence the review.

If this sounds like something you’d be interested in, please email me directly to sign up! I’ll post reference group memberships to the blog as the list grows.

Finally, if you’d like to make a contribution and aren’t interested in joining the reference group, you can instead make a written submission for the review. Just email it to me or Vicki Tan (vicki.tan@une.edu.au) directly.

Next: Terms of Reference

Cheers,

Damon.

This time around I’d like to talk, in very broad terms, about the the how and the when. I’ll briefly cover the scope of the project, how I plan to go about it, and when I expect to have things completed. This is the same content that I presented to the Management Forum meeting at the project’s launch, for the benefit of those who were not in attendance.

Scope

The VLE Review will:

• Identify and articulate needs: student, instructor, and organisational.
• Analyse the system architecture of the VLE: subsystems and their interactions.
• Evaluate LMS solutions based on wide market scan and identified needs.
• Recommend the LMS solution(s) and VLE architecture that best fit the identified needs
• Prepare a roadmap for implementation.

The VLE Review will not:

• Procure any new software or systems.
• Implement any changes to the current state of the VLE or any LMS.

Proposed Approach

At this stage, I plan to follow five broad step in undertaking the review.

1. Identification of Needs

• Solicit input from instructors and students via surveys and face-to-face interviews.
• Consult with other universities to guage the “state of play” in online teaching and learning.

2. Determination of Agreed Criteria

• Use the needs identified in Stage 1 as a starting point.
  • Engage an advisory board to fine-tune the requirements:
  • Add, change, or remove requirements
  • Prioritise them as essential / desirable
  • Assign weightings
  • Determine scoring methods/metrics

• Advisory board will likely consist of Heads of Schools (or their proxies), academics in charge of largest units by enrollments, and academic directors.

3. Analysis of VLE System Architecture

• Examine current systems and subsystems.
• Examine interactions between systems.
• Identify strengths and weaknesses.
• Identify unfilled needs.
• Consult with vendors and other universities for their insights and experiences.
• Cost and time estimates based on consultations.

4. Evaluation of LMS Solutions

• Use the Business Reading Rating (BRR) methodology, or some other established Software Evaluation Framework
  • The BRR model was used by CSU (modified/refined), Open University UK, San Francisco State University, and others for their LMS evaluations but it not as popular as some other frameworks. Further investigation on this front is required.
• Wide market scan
• Consult with vendors and other universities.
• Short-list based on consultations and agreed criteria.
• Detailed evaluation of short-listed solutions.
  • According to agreed criteria.
  • Solicit student and instructor input via focus groups using trial installations of short-listed solutions.
  • Cost and time estimates for implementation based on consultations.

5. Preparation of Report/Recommendations

• Report on findings and analysis
• Make recommendations
  • VLE System Architecture
  • LMS(s)
• Project Initiation Proposal
  • For implementation during 2010, going live sometime in late 2010 or 2011
  • Timeframe estimates
  • Budget estimates

Timeframe

Here is a rough estimate of what to expect and when. I know these might be a bit optimistic, but I think they’re doable without compromising the quality of the review.

• Needs analysis to be completed by late June/Early July.
• Agreed criteria signed off by end of July/early August.
• Analysis of VLE architecture performed concurrently and completed by end of July.
• LMS evaluation focus groups and vendor presentations held during August.
• Analysis and report ready by late October.

I have already started work on the needs analysis and the analysis of the VLE architecture. I am currently trying to arrange an advisory committee/working group to provide me with some guidance. More on this next time.

Cheers,

Damon.

Welcome to the VLE review project blog.

The idea behind this blog is to provide the wider university with some insights into what is happening with the review and how it is progressing. Over the coming months I’ll post information on findings, respond to comments and suggestions, and post general thoughts about review-related topics. Among other things, I plan to provide semi-regular progress updates.

Some Background

The VLE review started life as a proposal to evaluate and select a single Learning Management System for the university. However it became apparent that an LMS is only one part of a much broader virtual learning environment, and that a single LMS may not best meet the needs of the university.

For this reason, the LMS review has been expanded to encompass this Virtual Learning Environment in its entirety. It includes systems like TLC admin, e-submission, and TurnItIn. It even includes things as disparate as the Callista student system, the myUNE portal, and Turing.

Goals of the Review

With this in mind, here is what the review aims to accomplish, broadly stated.

•    Assess the university’s current VLE situation.
•    Identify needs for the future.
•    Recommend a way forward, especially with regard to an LMS solution.
•    Prepare a roadmap for the implementation and development of the recommendation.

Objectivity and Transparency

The VLE comprises a significant portion of the university experience for students, especially since the majority of enrollments are off-campus. It also serves as a major, and in many cases the primary, means of instructor/student communication.

In addition, past issues and problems have raised a lot of confusion and fueled strong opinion about the issue.

For these reasons and more, the primary concern for me as the VLE Project Manager is to remain objective. To be successful, I feel that I will need to get staff and students on-side and engage them in the process. I’d also like to provide transparency, so that interested parties can keep up to date on what is going on and provide contributions of their own.

To engage staff and students, the review will solicit input and feedback via surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Indeed, I intend for these things to drive the review. To provide transparency, the progress and findings of the review will be made public via this blog and various other planned channels such as a Wiki (coming soon).

Regards,
Damon Ferris
Project Manager - VLE Review

NEXT: Methodology and Time frames