Main Nav


Hi all-

I think Rick and Mike's points can be complimentary.  Right now, an LMS serves the majority of my faculty's needs quite well.  That leaves ~10% who won't use technology and ~10% who push beyond what the LMS can offer.  LMSes are always a step behind the latest web-based/social-networked technology, so they can't keep up with the early-adopter faculty, thus we work closely with them to gather other tools which fit their needs and also to learn from as they break new trails.

Ever since I heard him speak at ELI, I've found Jon Mott's idea of a loosely-coupled gradebook to be an intriguing possible solution to this problem:
This terrific idea would allow the institution to maintain a centralized gradebook (meeting whatever regulations are required there) and for innovative faculty to use whatever services/applications they find today and tomorrow.  Perhaps that loosely-coupled gradebook could even live in the LMS, which would serve the bulk of the faculty well.  

I look forward to learning more from Jon and BYU's experiences.

-Barron




-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
         Barron Koralesky
Information Technology Services
        Macalester College




********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Comments

Message from luke.fernandez@gmail.com

The ironic mise-en-scene (see for example second 51) is also a fun aspect of that video.... :) Luke Fernandez Weber State University
Good discussion, and I wholeheartedly agree with comments about needing to match instructional needs / faculty input.

It is probably worth pointing out that part of the reason that most exiting LMS solutions don't have "a good solution/road map for collaboration and social networking" is that many systems were designed before social networking existed.  This is not to say that they are not working to change their systems, but the LMS market in general has not had new designs until the past year or so.

In my opinion there is a shift in the LMS market going on right now (which I describe in several posts at mfeldstein.com), partially based on new investment in educational technology from venture capital / private equity / strategic moves by publishers.  I suspect that even the existing LMS solutions will have to react to these changes, leading to a changed market overall.  Today's market is not the same as 2009's market.

What this means is that it will be important not just to satisfy current instructional needs, but also to plan for where you want your institution to be in 3 - 5 years.  Road maps and architectures matter as much or more than current features.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phil Hill / Executive Vice President

Delta Initiative, LLC
(919) 270-9337 Mobile
phill@deltainitiative.com
http://www.deltainitiative.com


California State University, Chico recently completed an LMS evaluation that was faculty driven. It was a multi-year process that started in 2009 with Angel, Moodle, Blackboard Learn, and Sakai. Faculty eliminated Sakai early on (no real interest), and Blackboard eliminated Angel when they purchased them. We then went much deeper into evaluating Moodle 1.9 and Blackboard Learn 9.1. We chose Learn and are currently piloting, with a full rollout planned for spring. So far, it's been very smooth and our pilot faculty seem to be happy. Details on our process can be found here: http://www.csuchico.edu/atec/lms/ and there's more evaluation processes documented at Blackboard's Evaluation Center (http://www.blackboard.com/Platforms/Learn/Resources/Evaluation-Resource-...). Of course, the evaluations listed at Blackboard's site all resulted in the selection of Learn, but the data and processes used by the many institutions should still be helpful. I've been very impressed with the increased quality of Learn and with the roadmap of planned features coming, including tight integration with Google apps and social media (Facebook/Twitter). The company has really turned itself around in the last 12-18 months on both the quality of their product and their support organizations. Happy to discuss any of this off-line with any who are interested. -- Scott Kodai Manager, Distributed Learning Technologies and Classroom Technology Services Lecturer, Department of Management California State University, Chico 530.898.4992 office 530.680.5734 cell http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottkodai -----Original Message----- From: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Luke Fernandez Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:54 AM To: CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [CIO] LMS Comparison The ironic mise-en-scene (see for example second 51) is also a fun aspect of that video.... :) Luke Fernandez Weber State University
Message from allisodh@muohio.edu

For a similar initiative with different product outcome, I've attached a one page document with the highlights of our LMS project.  Our LMS evaluation was faculty-driven as well, and resulted in a recommendation to move from Blackboard to Sakai.  The timeline begins March/April 2010, with a product decision in May, pilot with 50 faculty beginning January 2011, and full production August 2011.  From evaluation to full production took 18 months.  The accelerated timeline enabled us to avoid between $750K and $1.2M, mostly due to a shorter timeframe when we would be testing Sakai and still using Blackboard in production.

 

The numbers cited in the attachment may be of interest:

  1. Most courses are created in the week before and the week of classes (this is similar to Blackboard's usage)
  2. We migrated content, but most faculty started fresh and re-thought their courses (which our president encouraged the faculty to do)
  3. Migration workshops weren't well attended compared to general training workshops
  4. The runaway success was the just-in-time training videos

The launch in August went very smoothly, and we are receiving kudos from faculty.  The Deans report no complaints. There may be some mid-semester angst as grades become due, but we have scheduled training workshops to address this.

 

Robert Howard, assistant vp for academic and institutional technology services, had lead responsibility for the project.  We had a great project team and terrific engagement by faculty.  We are delighted with the support of the Sakai community.

 

For more history, you can look at www.muohio.edu/sip/   For information about the implementation project and for information regarding the decision process, you can go to http://www.muohio.edu/lms.

 

And for those who are wondering, “Niihka” means “friend” in the Myaamia language, the language of the Miami Indian tribe whose members once lived in this area (now in Oklahoma) and with whom the University maintains a very active partnership. FLING stands for “Faculty Inquiry Learning Group,” which is an existing framework faculty use to form pedagogical teams that generally last a semester or year.

 

Regards,

Debi Allison

 

Debra Hust Allison

Vice President for Information Technology and CIO

Frye Leadership Fellow

Miami University

Oxford, OH  45056

513.529.8338 (phone)

513.529.8339 (fax)

www.muohio.edu/itservices (division web site)

Follow us on Facebook at Information Technology Services at Miami University

MiamiCIO (Twitter)

IT Services: Delivering vision and technology services that transform Miami today and tomorrow.

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Kodai, Scott [mailto:skodai@CSUCHICO.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: LMS Comparison

 

California State University, Chico recently completed an LMS evaluation that was faculty driven. It was a multi-year process that started in 2009 with Angel, Moodle, Blackboard Learn, and Sakai. Faculty eliminated Sakai early on (no real interest), and Blackboard eliminated Angel when they purchased them. We then went much deeper into evaluating Moodle 1.9 and Blackboard Learn 9.1. We chose Learn and are currently piloting, with a full rollout planned for spring. So far, it's been very smooth and our pilot faculty seem to be happy.

 

Details on our process can be found here: http://www.csuchico.edu/atec/lms/ and there's more evaluation processes documented at Blackboard's Evaluation Center (http://www.blackboard.com/Platforms/Learn/Resources/Evaluation-Resource-Center.aspx). Of course, the evaluations listed at Blackboard's site all resulted in the selection of Learn, but the data and processes used by the many institutions should still be helpful.

 

I've been very impressed with the increased quality of Learn and with the roadmap of planned features coming, including tight integration with Google apps and social media (Facebook/Twitter). The company has really turned itself around in the last 12-18 months on both the quality of their product and their support organizations.

 

Happy to discuss any of this off-line with any who are interested.

 

--

Scott Kodai

Manager, Distributed Learning Technologies and Classroom Technology Services Lecturer, Department of Management California State University, Chico

530.898.4992 office

530.680.5734 cell

http://www.linkedin.com/in/scottkodai

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Luke Fernandez

Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 8:54 AM

To: CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU

Subject: Re: [CIO] LMS Comparison

 

The ironic mise-en-scene (see for example second 51) is also a fun aspect of that video.... :)

 

Luke Fernandez

Weber State University

 

 

A fabulously timely conversation.

 

Current LMS technology is, only now, going through introspection in an attempt to reconcile their core design and architecture with major shifts in the industry. Learning Management Systems at their core are content management systems with tools that where meant to replicate the physical classroom and capabilities that supported some discrete web innovation. Not social networking, social learning or community based education practices.

 

Change however is happening, albeit slowly in both the traditional academic markets as well as the corporate training markets.

 

Expect a few new LMS players to enter the academic market this year at Educause, showcasing new capabilities in not only the social networking and community perspective, but also attempting to extend themselves into workforce development and continuing education, some which are crossing over from the corporate training industries.

 

We have a full list of about 2 dozen, more if you consider the LMS’s in use in continuing education and training arms of institutions.

 

Our research team just finished 8 months of research and collaboration with key people at all the LMS companies and will be releasing a booklet of vendor profiles to attendees at the upcoming event in Philadelphia to inform the LMS selection process and provides key insights.

 

For those still looking for Google+ invites, I have a few left if you require an invitation and would be happy to invite you so you can test some of the theories below..

Stephen

 

Stephen Gilfus

President and CEO

Gilfus Education Group

Office: 888-861-3375 ext 707

Mobile: 202-253-6996

Email: steve@gilfuseducationgroup.com

www.gilfuseducationgroup.com

 

 

From: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hill, Phil
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:55 AM
To: CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [CIO] LMS Comparison

 

Good discussion, and I wholeheartedly agree with comments about needing to match instructional needs / faculty input.

 

It is probably worth pointing out that part of the reason that most exiting LMS solutions don't have "a good solution/road map for collaboration and social networking" is that many systems were designed before social networking existed.  This is not to say that they are not working to change their systems, but the LMS market in general has not had new designs until the past year or so.

 

In my opinion there is a shift in the LMS market going on right now (which I describe in several posts at mfeldstein.com), partially based on new investment in educational technology from venture capital / private equity / strategic moves by publishers.  I suspect that even the existing LMS solutions will have to react to these changes, leading to a changed market overall.  Today's market is not the same as 2009's market.

 

What this means is that it will be important not just to satisfy current instructional needs, but also to plan for where you want your institution to be in 3 - 5 years.  Road maps and architectures matter as much or more than current features.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phil Hill / Executive Vice President

Delta Initiative, LLC
(919) 270-9337 Mobile
phill@deltainitiative.com
http://www.deltainitiative.com

 

 

Most of the existing LMS’s are built under a model that a class is the center of learning. As a result, all materials, home work submissions, communication, projects, etc. are all built under a hierarchical structure with the class being the parent. Examples of this structure inlcude: Blackboard, Moodle, Sakai, Angel, D2L, etc. I would like to argue that this structure is actually preventing cross disciplinary learning. Children learn most as they interrelated different parts of their lives. Yes, they learn to read, write and arithmetic. But they learn addition when mommy goes to the the grocery store with them. They learn to read when daddy reads them a bed time story to the signs on the freeway (some of which should not be read by anyone...). The learn music when playing the piano but they learn music when watching TV or playing with their friends. They learn to tell stories when they play with their little beanie babies and lego-men. The center of their learning is not a class but rather the child. The child uses all the material they have learned and creates something new. When we create LMS where the the student submits materials into a class and the material goes bye-bye when the class is over, we are taking away some of those beanie babies and lego-men from our students. They cannot reference old material to build new structures. Additionally, the student’s world is much greater than the class they are attending (at least I hope so). They draw from their social community to help them in their learning. I see that all the time in our libraries and other study areas. The social network they have established helps them grow. In fact, we are experiencing our social network as you read my post. So why are we restricting our students to only a class structure? I agree that class structures are very important but learning is not only about the class. God bless, Sam Young Chief Information Officer Point Loma Nazarene University Individualization ~ Achiever ~ Learner ~ Belief ~ Activator ________________________________ From: Stephen Gilfus Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:37:12 -0700 To: "CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU" Subject: Re: [CIO] LMS Comparison A fabulously timely conversation. Current LMS technology is, only now, going through introspection in an attempt to reconcile their core design and architecture with major shifts in the industry. Learning Management Systems at their core are content management systems with tools that where meant to replicate the physical classroom and capabilities that supported some discrete web innovation. Not social networking, social learning or community based education practices. Change however is happening, albeit slowly in both the traditional academic markets as well as the corporate training markets. Expect a few new LMS players to enter the academic market this year at Educause, showcasing new capabilities in not only the social networking and community perspective, but also attempting to extend themselves into workforce development and continuing education, some which are crossing over from the corporate training industries. We have a full list of about 2 dozen, more if you consider the LMS’s in use in continuing education and training arms of institutions. Our research team just finished 8 months of research and collaboration with key people at all the LMS companies and will be releasing a booklet of vendor profiles to attendees at the upcoming event in Philadelphia to inform the LMS selection process and provides key insights. For those still looking for Google+ invites, I have a few left if you require an invitation and would be happy to invite you so you can test some of the theories below.. Stephen Stephen Gilfus President and CEO Gilfus Education Group Office: 888-861-3375 ext 707 Mobile: 202-253-6996 Email: steve@gilfuseducationgroup.com www.gilfuseducationgroup.com From: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hill, Phil Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:55 AM To: CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [CIO] LMS Comparison Good discussion, and I wholeheartedly agree with comments about needing to match instructional needs / faculty input. It is probably worth pointing out that part of the reason that most exiting LMS solutions don't have "a good solution/road map for collaboration and social networking" is that many systems were designed before social networking existed. This is not to say that they are not working to change their systems, but the LMS market in general has not had new designs until the past year or so. In my opinion there is a shift in the LMS market going on right now (which I describe in several posts at mfeldstein.com ), partially based on new investment in educational technology from venture capital / private equity / strategic moves by publishers. I suspect that even the existing LMS solutions will have to react to these changes, leading to a changed market overall. Today's market is not the same as 2009's market. What this means is that it will be important not just to satisfy current instructional needs, but also to plan for where you want your institution to be in 3 - 5 years. Road maps and architectures matter as much or more than current features. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Phil Hill / Executive Vice President Delta Initiative, LLC (919) 270-9337 Mobile phill@deltainitiative.com http://www.deltainitiative.com
Message from dabantz@alaska.edu

What changes in high level architecture or functional requirements follow from this critique?

David Bantz

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, at 09:38 , Sam Young wrote:

Most of the existing LMS’s are built under a model that a class is the center of learning. As a result, all materials, home work submissions, communication, projects, etc. are all built under a hierarchical structure with the class being the parent. Examples of this structure inlcude: Blackboard, Moodle, Sakai, Angel, D2L, etc.

I would like to argue that this structure is actually preventing cross disciplinary learning. Children learn most as they interrelated different parts of their lives. Yes, they learn to read, write and arithmetic. But they learn addition when mommy goes to the the grocery store with them. They learn to read when daddy reads them a bed time story to the signs on the freeway (some of which should not be read by anyone...). The learn music when playing the piano but they learn music when watching TV or playing with their friends. They learn to tell stories when they play with their little beanie babies and lego-men.

The center of their learning is not a class but rather the child. The child uses all the material they have learned and creates something new. When we create LMS where the the student submits materials into a class and the material goes bye-bye when the class is over, we are taking away some of those beanie babies and lego-men from our students. They cannot reference old material to build new structures.

Additionally, the student’s world is much greater than the class they are attending (at least I hope so). They draw from their social community to help them in their learning. I see that all the time in our libraries and other study areas. The social network they have established helps them grow. In fact, we are experiencing our social network as you read my post. So why are we restricting our students to only a class structure? I agree that class structures are very important but learning is not only about the class.

God bless,
Sam Young
Chief Information Officer
Point Loma Nazarene University

Individualization ~ Achiever ~ Learner ~ Belief ~ Activator

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

I agree, and we are seeing this as one of the biggest weaknesses or our LMS.


>>> Sam Young <SamYoung@POINTLOMA.EDU> 9/19/2011 11:38 AM >>>
Most of the existing LMS’s are built under a model that a class is the center of learning. As a result, all materials, home work submissions, communication, projects, etc. are all built under a hierarchical structure with the class being the parent. Examples of this structure inlcude: Blackboard, Moodle, Sakai, Angel, D2L, etc.

I would like to argue that this structure is actually preventing cross disciplinary learning. Children learn most as they interrelated different parts of their lives. Yes, they learn to read, write and arithmetic. But they learn addition when mommy goes to the the grocery store with them. They learn to read when daddy reads them a bed time story to the signs on the freeway (some of which should not be read by anyone...). The learn music when playing the piano but they learn music when watching TV or playing with their friends. They learn to tell stories when they play with their little beanie babies and lego-men.

The center of their learning is not a class but rather the child. The child uses all the material they have learned and creates something new. When we create LMS where the the student submits materials into a class and the material goes bye-bye when the class is over, we are taking away some of those beanie babies and lego-men from our students. They cannot reference old material to build new structures.

Additionally, the student’s world is much greater than the class they are attending (at least I hope so). They draw from their social community to help them in their learning. I see that all the time in our libraries and other study areas. The social network they have established helps them grow. In fact, we are experiencing our social network as you read my post. So why are we restricting our students to only a class structure? I agree that class structures are very important but learning is not only about the class.

God bless,
Sam Young
Chief Information Officer
Point Loma Nazarene University

Individualization ~ Achiever ~ Learner ~ Belief ~ Activator


________________________________
From: Stephen Gilfus <steve@GILFUSEDUCATIONGROUP.COM>
Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv <CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 22:37:12 -0700
To: "CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU" <CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [CIO] LMS Comparison

A fabulously timely conversation.

Current LMS technology is, only now, going through introspection in an attempt to reconcile their core design and architecture with major shifts in the industry. Learning Management Systems at their core are content management systems with tools that where meant to replicate the physical classroom and capabilities that supported some discrete web innovation. Not social networking, social learning or community based education practices.

Change however is happening, albeit slowly in both the traditional academic markets as well as the corporate training markets.

Expect a few new LMS players to enter the academic market this year at Educause, showcasing new capabilities in not only the social networking and community perspective, but also attempting to extend themselves into workforce development and continuing education, some which are crossing over from the corporate training industries.

We have a full list of about 2 dozen, more if you consider the LMS’s in use in continuing education and training arms of institutions.

Our research team just finished 8 months of research and collaboration with key people at all the LMS companies and will be releasing a booklet of vendor profiles to attendees at the upcoming event in Philadelphia to inform the LMS selection process and provides key insights.

For those still looking for Google+ invites, I have a few left if you require an invitation and would be happy to invite you so you can test some of the theories below..
Stephen

Stephen Gilfus
President and CEO
Gilfus Education Group
Office: 888-861-3375 ext 707
Mobile: 202-253-6996
Email: steve@gilfuseducationgroup.com
www.gilfuseducationgroup.com <http://www.gilfuseducationgroup.com>



From: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hill, Phil
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 11:55 AM
To: CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [CIO] LMS Comparison

Good discussion, and I wholeheartedly agree with comments about needing to match instructional needs / faculty input.



It is probably worth pointing out that part of the reason that most exiting LMS solutions don't have "a good solution/road map for collaboration and social networking" is that many systems were designed before social networking existed.  This is not to say that they are not working to change their systems, but the LMS market in general has not had new designs until the past year or so.



In my opinion there is a shift in the LMS market going on right now (which I describe in several posts at mfeldstein.com <http://mfeldstein.com> ), partially based on new investment in educational technology from venture capital / private equity / strategic moves by publishers.  I suspect that even the existing LMS solutions will have to react to these changes, leading to a changed market overall.  Today's market is not the same as 2009's market.



What this means is that it will be important not just to satisfy current instructional needs, but also to plan for where you want your institution to be in 3 - 5 years.  Road maps and architectures matter as much or more than current features.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Phil Hill / Executive Vice President

Delta Initiative, LLC
(919) 270-9337 Mobile
phill@deltainitiative.com <x-msg://134/phill@deltainitiative.com>
http://www.deltainitiative.com <http://www.deltainitiative.com/>




At our university CTL and Instructional Technology section of ITS have jointly developed a six week summer faculty development program. This program helps faculty rethink what student engagement means and how we can use technology to further support that engagement. We have received very positive responses to the seminar. One of my managers stated in one of our ITS Management Retreats: We have introduced all types of technologies before with little to no responses from the faculty. What makes you think this time is going to be any different? My response to him was that we are working jointly to both introduce a student center learning paradigm while preparing the technology to support it. The difference is that we are creating demand for the collaborative technologies we introduce. This is the second year we have conducted this seminar and my instructional technology team tells me they have good news and bad news. Good news is that faculty are coming to them for help to develop their courses. They view my team much more of peers than before. The bad news is that they are swamped and cannot get to my projects. This is a very good problem to have... Architectural difference is that learning modules, learning objects, student materials, events (tests, home work) and communication are currently all stored under “course/section”. You have to associate everything to a course. Student centered design would put the student at the top. Yes, we still need students to be grouped into classes, but the system would allow the student to organize their “space” which ever way they want. The student should be able to organize the materials around a course, but when the course is over they should be able to move that material into more general subject areas or portfolios. Communication should be more like social media sites. Dynamic collaborative groups can be formed and disassembled at will. This is a very different way of thinking about learning and school. I’m not sure Higher Edu is ready for this, but one can only hope. God bless, Sam Young Chief Information Officer Point Loma Nazarene University Individualization ~ Achiever ~ Learner ~ Belief ~ Activator ________________________________ From: David Bantz Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 10:47:32 -0700 To: "CIO@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU" Subject: Re: [CIO] LMS Comparison What changes in high level architecture or functional requirements follow from this critique? David Bantz On Mon, 19 Sep 2011, at 09:38 , Sam Young wrote: Most of the existing LMS’s are built under a model that a class is the center of learning. As a result, all materials, home work submissions, communication, projects, etc. are all built under a hierarchical structure with the class being the parent. Examples of this structure inlcude: Blackboard, Moodle, Sakai, Angel, D2L, etc. I would like to argue that this structure is actually preventing cross disciplinary learning. Children learn most as they interrelated different parts of their lives. Yes, they learn to read, write and arithmetic. But they learn addition when mommy goes to the the grocery store with them. They learn to read when daddy reads them a bed time story to the signs on the freeway (some of which should not be read by anyone...). The learn music when playing the piano but they learn music when watching TV or playing with their friends. They learn to tell stories when they play with their little beanie babies and lego-men. The center of their learning is not a class but rather the child. The child uses all the material they have learned and creates something new. When we create LMS where the the student submits materials into a class and the material goes bye-bye when the class is over, we are taking away some of those beanie babies and lego-men from our students. They cannot reference old material to build new structures. Additionally, the student’s world is much greater than the class they are attending (at least I hope so). They draw from their social community to help them in their learning. I see that all the time in our libraries and other study areas. The social network they have established helps them grow. In fact, we are experiencing our social network as you read my post. So why are we restricting our students to only a class structure? I agree that class structures are very important but learning is not only about the class. God bless, Sam Young Chief Information Officer Point Loma Nazarene University Individualization ~ Achiever ~ Learner ~ Belief ~ Activator ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/. ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Is anyone aware of a new matrix of lms evals?  Or one that speaks to future functionality? 

Thanks

jeanne

 

 

 

Jeanne Casares

Chief Information Officer

Rochester Institute of Technology

135 Lomb Memorial Drive

Rochester, NY  14623-5603

Phone: 585-475-4455

jeanne.casares@rit.edu

https://apps.rit.edu/fa/ritchieslist/app/

 

 

Years ago, I stopped being fan of LMS comparison matrices as I found them to be incomplete, out-of-date, and a bit biased.  On the other hand, I stay rather current on the LMS front by comparing notes with colleagues at other colleges and universities (on an ongoing basis), and by researching new versions and developments on commercial and open-source LMS systems and other systems and tools of potential use for Teaching & Learning with Technology.

Besides conventional LMS functionality, newer functionality that I think plays or will play a significant role in an LMS or Teaching & Learning platform include:

    1) continued emphasis on ease-of-use

    2) support for ubiquitous learning, inc. mobile LMS and communication

    3) social learning intelligence and adaptability

    4) granular options for institutional and instructor configuration

    5) truly Web accessible for all people, inc. people with disabilities 

    6) public LMS APIs and support for open standards, inc. LMS

    7) built-in intelligence to support Open Education on a course per course basis

    8) easy-to-use Gradebook yet rich with advanced features to meet everyone's needs

    9) proven reliability and scalability inc. for processor-intensive and time-sensitive
        applications such as long high-stakes online examinations

  10) extensible and programmable to support seamless third-party system integration
        (intelligent and flexible integration, beyond simple single sign-on)

  11) capable to serve as a Teaching & Learning platform or hub to leverage backend
        integration investments with student information systems and other institutional
        mission-critical systems.

Check also the Educause Learning Initiative, inc. archives from annual ELI meetings, where we often discuss these things ad nauseum. The Sloan Consortium is another excellent Educational Technology resources.  Also, the IMS has an interesting document on enterprise Teaching & Learning Systems adoption practices at http://www.imsglobal.org/elsap/index.html

Greetings from Chicago,

Ed Garay            
Assistant Director for Academic Computing
Director, UIC Instructional Technology Lab
University of Illinois at Chicago

ITL Blog: www.accc.uic.edu/itl/blog


** Ubiquitous Learning :: teaching and learning (while on the go) anytime, anywhere...

[  Sent from iPad  ]


CIOs,

If anyone has seen a recent independent functional comparison of Learning Management Systems including Open Source packages, I'd appreciate a copy/lead/link.

Thanks.

Ken Schindler/YSU
********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/discuss.

All, If anyone has seen a recent independent functional comparison of Learning Management Systems including Open Source packages, I'd appreciate a copy/lead/link. Apologies for any cross-listing. Thanks. Ken Schindler/YSU ********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.
Close
Close


Annual Conference
September 29–October 2
Register Now!

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

Digital Badges
Member recognition effort
Earn yours >

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.