Saturday, August 14, 2010

The Red Balloon Project

Listen to George L. Mehaffy, Vice President for Academic Leadership and Change, AASCU, introduce the Red Balloon Project here:

Introduction to the Red Balloon Project from John Hammang on Vimeo.

And read this article from Inside Higher Ed about this Red Balloon Project.


And finally an excerpt taken from the AASCU web site:

-----------------------------------------

The Academic Affairs Meeting and the year-long Red Balloon Project will focus on a set of key questions. How can we:

Lower Costs

  1. Maximize cost-effectiveness (either hold costs constant while increasing the number of students involved, or reduce costs)
  2. Make programs scalable (increase the number of students served while reducing per-student costs)

Increase Participation

  1. Create more effective student engagement. Engagement is the key to greater learning outcomes
  2. Produce greater learning outcomes documented by a rich array of instruments and assessment strategies

Respond to the Challenge of Technology

  1. Focus on the development of 21st century skills to create 21st century learning and leadership outcomes
  2. Rethink teaching, learning, and faculty roles
"There is a good deal of discussion about the outcomes needed for a 21st century college graduate. However, absent from the dialogue so far is much attention about how we might reorganize our institutions to achieve these results. For chief academic officers, the core question is about how to create effective and long-lasting institutional change."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that you have the context, I can make my comments.

I like this idea a lot. Can we really get "outside the box" without people kicking and screaming saying "we've always done it this way and it worked for me!" How far outside the box can we go? Will we spend enough time really getting our ears around our future students and those faculty and staff heavily involved in leveraging the technology in teaching and learning? Success lies in a stretch between what people will tolerate and how imaginative we can be!!

I'm particularly interested and curious about how to respond to the "challenge of technology." Most Provosts have had a teaching and an administrative career that didn't include a lot of experience in leading or leveraging technology, particularly today's technology. So is it possible without the experience, language, vision, and current skill set that has leveraged a lot of today's technology, can the conversation get out there far enough? How exposed are Provosts to the future students to know when or if their imagination is taking them far enough to meet the future on the mark? This requires LOTS of listening and a very open mind, not alone imagination when you consider today's student and the student soon to come to college.

And while the CIO has in the last 10 years made it's way in the organization as one of the top executives, can a majority of the CIOs speak to the instructional design processes of effectively leveraging the technology for teaching and learning? Being a techie myself and saying this affectionately, most of them are geeks but teaching and learning with technology requires a different dimension.

I understand that people can lead without being in the weeds of an organization; however, I really think that new formations of higher education organizations are key to making change in order to get more voices with experience in teaching with technology at the top or at least heavily involved in the top-level conversations. I don't know how to change the organization but I do know that "Academic Technologies" or rather "Instructional Technologies" have exploded in the last 10 years. Working within a large state university system, I can see very clearly how people who have been involved in these areas (or perhaps I should say the LACK of people who are available to support these areas) are frequently very dysfunctionally scattered across the institution and in very small numbers which makes big impact difficult. Dartmouth talked about their TRIP project whereby they brought together learning technologists, librarians, and media specialists to support the faculty as a team rather than scattered resources and individuals in different departments in different locations. You can read about this in the EDUCAUSE ECAR article, "Moving Beyond the Org Chart."

There is no uniform "SATO - Senior Academic Technology Officer" in higher education organizations (taken from the EDUCAUSE article "Rethinking Academic Technology Leadership in an Era of Change") to represent this still exploding area of academic technologies on campuses. Some campuses, for example, have NO instructional designers to support faculty in implementing technology in teaching and learning. Shouldn't a Provost recognize that hole in their organization? It seems so glaringly behind the times, about 5 to 10 years. And yet with budget cuts, who is going to create a new area to do this? And regardless of the growth in academic/instructional technologies, most institutions have cut uniformly across the organization rather than consider to hold steady or add support to this area. I understand that there is no money available but priorities and organizations can be changed without cash flow. Who will have the courage to upset the apple cart and "just do it!?" Get a SATO so someone near the top of the organization can focus consistently and over time on the key set of questions stated above in the AASCU Red Ballon Project.

-Kathy

Friday, September 25, 2009

Blackboard Buyout Discussions

Well, if you ever wonder about coincidences...on the same day, I was given information separately about articles discussing the potential buyers of Blackboard:

Google? - http://blogs.wsj.com/financial-adviser/2009/09/18/five-companies-google-might-buy-next/?mod=yahoo_hs

or Microsoft? - http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/technology_and_learning/5_reasons_microsoft_will_buy_blackboard

or a publisher? or Oracle? or ???

Here's an update on the LMS Market and where the California State University stands with their LMS Initiatives and Strategic Planning:
http://www.deltainitiative.com/index.php/Webinars/webinars.html

-Kathy

Kathy Fernandes
Director of System-wide LMS Initiatives

California State University, Office of the Chancellor
Academic Technology Services
Voice: (530) 898-6294
E-mail: kfernandes@csuchico.edu

Thursday, August 20, 2009

California State University LMS Updates

Campus Technology has announced San Jose State's Recommendation to Faculty is Desire2Learn for their new Learning Management System. The article can be found at: http://campustechnology.com/articles/2009/08/19/san-jose-state-recommends-desire2learn-to-faculty.aspx

Meanwhile CSU Northridge will be heavily piloting Moodle in the Fall semester as they have received great help from the CSU Moodle Consortium. This consortium now includes SFSU, Humboldt, Monterey Bay and Cal Maritime working together on several fronts to support one another in their Moodle implementations. Cal Maritime moved to Moodle over the summer. One of consortium's projects includes using QuickGuides as their common online "knowledge-base/tutorials/FAQ" to serve their campus constituencies. Details and project plans are being developed. More information to be shared in the next few months.

There are still other LMS evaluations being done on CSU campuses and hence more results to be revealed within the next 9 months or so.

Thursday, August 6, 2009

Rise of Discussion on Changing Learning or Course Management Systems

This article came into being while searching and reflecting on materials that would provide campuses some assistance in conducting their learning management system or course management system evaluations.

Since the California State University (CSU) system finished the RFP process in early 2009, some of the CSU campuses have engaged or are engaging in determing their next generation LMS. But it appears no matter where I go, BbWorld 09 in Washington, DC or the "2-3-98" Conference in New York, the discussion of colleges and universities evaluating their next LMS is a very hot topic. There is a new Google group: cms-options@googlegroups.com to discuss the options and approaches to doing an LMS evaluation. Also the WICHE/WCET organization has a group that is building a wiki on all issues to consider and things you want to know while managing your LMS/CMS selection or evaluation process. It's not yet ready to be released to the general public but we are working on it.

I found the following article by Michael Feldstein very good:
http://mfeldstein.com/advice-for-small-schools-on-the-lms-selection-process/

Of course, the recent acquistion of Angel by Blackboard, continues to feed this discussion. Certainly the EDUCAUSE CIO list had a large discussion thread on this same topic when the acquisiton was first announced.

Because each campus has its own governing committees and processes, every evaluation is run differently. Many of the evaluation processes are not documented or there are documents that do not provide the full context of the decision-making processes and so campuses may not be willing to share them publically.

But if your campus does have a public web site with information about their LMS/CMS evaluation process and/or decision-making process. We are interested in hearing from you. Create a comment and list your URL.

Thanks.
-Kathy
Director of CSU LMS System-wide Initiatives

Thursday, July 30, 2009

IMS Global Learning Consortium 08-09 Survey Results

The following information is taken from an e-mail sent by the IMS Global Learning Consortium. While the IMS Global organization has a web site, the site changes frequently and the message on the web page is not as clear as the following information.


Initial 2008/2009 LearnSAT Survey Results Showing Competitive Satisfaction Rates for LMS, Collaboration and Content Authoring Products


Although a little more than half-way through the survey period, very interesting trends and satisfaction ratings are developing for many of the learning technology categories and products included in the IMS GLC Learning Technology Satisfaction and Trends Survey (LearnSAT).

For example, see the current satisfaction ratings for LMS, Collaboration and Content Authoring products provided below. To see current results for all of the LearnSAT categories and associated products, or to take the LearnSAT Survey, please visit: http://www.imsglobal.org/LearnSat/index.html. Learning technology product and service providers are encouraged to disseminate this link to their clients as well.

At this time, Angel and Desire2Learn are leading and tied for highest level of end-user satisfaction in the LMS Category with a rating of 6.0 (“Moderately to Very Satisfied”). Desire2Learn has twice as many respondents than Angel to-date, placing them in a stronger position for the lead upon survey closure. Moodle is a close second to the leaders and has the second highest number of responses for this category. Blackboard and WebCT LMS are showing solid response rates, comparatively speaking, with an average end-user satisfaction of “Slightly Satisfied”.

Click to see detailed survey results for LMS products and category or to take the LearnSAT Survey.

In the Live Online Presentation and Collaboration Products category, Macromedia, WebEx and Elluminate are leading the pack based on number of respondents and satisfaction ratings. While Dim Dim and Wimba Pronto are showing very strong end user satisfaction based on a limited response rate from their end-users. The leaders could shift dramatically should response rates increase significantly through the close of the LearnSAT Survey in December 2009.

Click to see detailed survey results for collaboration products and category or to take the LearnSAT Survey.

Camtasia, Adobe Captivate and Microsoft PowerPoint lead the Learning Content Authoring category with the top three response rates. While SoftChalk, Articulate and StudyMate with much lower response rates, comparatively speaking, are showing similar or greater satisfaction rates than the response rate leaders. As noted with Live Online Presentation and Collaboration category above, the leaders could shift dramatically during the second half of the survey period should response rates increase for any of the products surveyed in the Learning Content Authoring category.

Click to see detailed survey results for Learning Content Authoring products and Category or to take the LearnSAT Survey

About the LearnSAT
The LearnSAT Survey and underlying research are conducted to help inform a new and rapidly evolving marketplace in the use of technology to support teaching and learning. Those responsible for implementing and supporting solutions in this new marketplace have very little information other than that supplied by vendors as to the level of satisfaction obtained. This research series attempts to fill that gap. A very unique aspect of this research is that it also looks at trends in how these technologies are being used and supported, as well as the technologies themselves. It is based on over two years of research uncovering best practices for success in Internet-Supported learning. The IMS Global Learning Consortium LearnSAT is the learning community's number one source for satisfaction and trends in the use of technology to support learning. For more information visit: http://www.imsglobal.org/LearnSat/index.html

Are you a part of the IMS/GLC Community? By joining the IMS/GLC Community, you will get access to items such as articles, the usecase repository, best practice information, and ability to download IMS/GLC specifications(pdf), examples and schemas and other great materials. It's free and easy. Sign up now at: http://www.imsglobal.org/register/register.cfm

Thursday, July 23, 2009

University of North Carolina - Bb Vista to Moodle

UNC-Charlotte's evaluation of Bb Vista and Moodle is publically available at:
http://bit.ly/18cBCB

They released their final report June 3 available at the URL above with the following notes:

I. Executive Summary

* Describes the results of an evaluative comparison of the Moodle Learning Management System with the University’s current Blackboard system (Vista);
* Recommends, on the basis of that evaluation, that the University adopt Moodle as its sole Learning Management System; and
* Outlines the consequences of doing so in conjunction with a plan for making the transition from Blackboard to Moodle.

Here are some of the quotes.

"[UNC] demands [an LMS] that is quick to learn, easy to use, reliable,
and able to accommodate our evolving needs"

"no cases in which a Moodle function or tool... was rated by either
faculty/students as being 'worse than Blackboard'"

"alternatives are clear: transition to Moodle or... negotiate a new
contract with Bb & migrate to product they offer."

"Moodle=better/comparable functionality w/ benefit of increased
relevance and control...in the long run... lower cost."

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Thinking Strategically : Upgrading to Release 9

Deployment options for Bb Learn 9
  • In place upgrade (for Legacy Bb systems)
From release 7.x to 9

  • Fresh install
Export and import of enrolment and content
CE 4, CE 8, Vista 8, Bb5+ (Archive and restore)

  • Co-production with LEC (Learning Environment Connector)
CE 4 and CE 8
  • Co-Production with LEC leveraging Content and Community system
CE4, CE8 and Vista - Moving
  • Co-production without LEC (side by side systems)
Running side by side WebCT version and Bb Learn 9
Authentication layer (from portal as example) at the top
Two completely different systems

NO USER DATA WILL BE IMPORTED INTO Bb Learn 9
  • Appraise and align to NG
Determine when is the right time to line up with NG
9.2 multi-institutions implementation

Project Definition and success
FACTORS OF CONSIDERATION
Goals and constraints
End-user impact
Policy
Technical
EFFECTIVE PRACTICES
Project planning
Communication
Change management and governance

Decision through Governance:
Institutional Goals
Constraints
Risks and Risk Tolerance
Available Resources

eLearning Operations
Teachning and learning
Content development
Technology
Enrollment Management
Support an Training
Assessment and Improvement processes

End-User Impact:
Training, Support, Teaching and learning practices, content management

Policy
Enrollment management
Security
Teaching and learning policy

Technical Considerations:
Integrations and customizations
Architecture design and capacity planning (projected growth and demand?)
Requirements fo transition
Data lifecyle
New skill requirements
System Monitoring
Determine suitable method and approach

Vista 8 Considerations before moving
Learning Modules coming in 9.1
Course File Management in 9.1
How much do you use the learning context hierarchy? Wait. (doesn't sound like that's in 9.1)
Cross-listing also not in version 9.1
9.2 for multi-institution

Service Level Definition
Expectations, Downtime widnows, escalation paths, response times, data life cycle (keep how long?)

Change Management
Policy, Operation and Technological

Change Management and Governance
Organizational structure/Committee structure
Communication plan

Project Planning
Phases
Definitions of responsibilities/team development
Timelines
Track success measures

Upgrade Testing
Test environment

Strategize which upgrade path
Plan
Inform

Upgrade Plans?
Tell your Bb TSM - submit a ticket so they it is happening at some point in time.

Tons of documentation at the Bb site
Training and Consulting and Managed Hosting
Upgrade team of colleagues - sign up online

Early adopters have discounted and free offerings:
:Life in bb Learn 9 for WebCT CE/Vista" Workshop
Getting Started with Bb Learn 9 Technical Services (Training) - intro to the "new " system and maintain LEC
Managed hosting