Date: 
03/19/2013 1:15 pm to 2:15 pm
Location: 
The Valley Library Drinkward Conference Room (4th floor)
Agenda: 

1. Approval of February 19 minutes

2. Updates on Blackboard (Mobile, Crosslisting, SafeAssign)

3. Discussion of emergent LMS issues and Q & A

  • Cheryl Middleton (Associate University Librarian)
  • Diana Fisher (Ecampus)

4. Brainstorming questions and priorities for CRC’s role in LMS discussion

  • Teaching and Learning Expectations Taskforce Final Report – July 3, 2012
  • Report of the Benchmark Taskforce – July 2012
     
Minutes: 

Members Present: Amy Flint, Richard Nafshun, Robert Reff, Stuart Sarbacker, Victor Hsu
Ex-officio Members Present: David Barber, Lois Brooks
Guest: Lucas Turpin

1. Updates on Blackboard

  • Mobile app (personal license) available
  • Crosslisting of new courses is now enhanced
  • SafeAssign has been implemented and is active


2. Discussion of emergent LMS issues with Cheryl Middleton and Dianna Fischer
Background: two review groups looking at suite of instructional systems

  • List of 10 systems

Dianna: Benchmarking task force

  • Question of tools used (including but not only LMS)
  • Critical perspectives on Blackboard system
  • Recommendations/Trends

Cheryl: Series of faculty forums distilled “ten expectations”

  • “next generation technology task force” document started process of bringing vendors (pre-RFP)
  • questions of path forward, beginning with broader discussion of technology needs and larger goals of educational process

Dianna: Process is underway with vendors

  • Developing webpage and blog for updates
  • Studies have drawn from data from other LMS and tech, drawing down from 40 to 4/5 of top
  • Reps in to have conversation, narrow the list, and identify “dealbreakers”

Cheryl: Core working group plus invested faculty across campus participating (Center for Teaching & Learning, Agricultural Sciences, Business, etc.)

  • Blackboard, Desire to Learn, Moodle, and Canvas appear top rated
  • Issues include Open vs. Closed-Source, Cloud vs. Local Data, which affect support and development issues
  • We have lots of useful data from other Universities


3. Issues identified as of significant import for the CRC:

  • Migration (easier the better, but not a dealbreaker)
  • Support (internal, external)
  • Relative “bugginess” of platforms
  • Keeping pace with process (half-life of platform?)
  • Integration with other tools, modularity
  • Shift to different LMS? (ease vs. difficulty)
  • Why stay with blackboard vs. why go with another platform?
  • Open vs. non-open source
  • Companies that support open source platforms
  • Security
  • Development, apps, webtools, etc.
  • Ecourse support
  • FERPA
  • Support for teaching, service, and research respectively
  • Traditional vs. non-traditional modes of learning supported integration with other tools, technologies (apps, webtools)