Asynch Delivery and the LMS Still Dominate for Online Programs
By Dian Schaffhauser 05/22/17
https://campustechnology.com/articles/2017/05/22/asynch-delivery-and-the-lms-still-dominate-for-online-programs.aspx
a recent research project by Quality Matters and Eduventures, the “Changing Landscape of Online Education (CHLOE)” offers a “baseline” examination of program development, quality measures and other structural issues.
95 percent of larger programs (those with 2,500 or more online program students) are “wholly asynchronous” while 1.5 percent are mainly or completely synchronous. About three-quarters (73 percent) of mid-sized programs (schools with between 500 and 2,499 online program students) and 62 percent of smaller programs are fully asynchronous.
The asynchronous nature of this kind of education may explain why threaded discussions turned up as the most commonly named teaching and learning technique, mentioned by 27.4 percent of respondents, closely followed by practice-based learning, listed by 27.3 percent of survey participants.
Blackboard and Instructure Canvas dominated. Audio- and videoconferencing come in a “distant second,” according to the researchers. The primary brands that surfaced for those functions were Adobe Connect, Cisco WebEx, Zoom, Kaltura, Panopto, TechSmith Camtasia and Echo360.
While the LMS plays a significant role in online programming, the report pointed to a distinct lack of references to “much-hyped innovations,” such as adaptive learning, competency-based education systems, simulation or game-based learning tools. (my note: my mouth run dry of repeating every time people start becoming orgasmic about LMS, D2L in particular)
four in 10 require the use of instructional design support, three in 10 use a team approach for online course design and one in 10 outsources the work. Overall, some 80 percent of larger programs use instructional design expertise.
In the smallest programs, instructional design support is treated as a “faculty option” for 53 percent of institutions. Another 18 percent expect faculty to develop their online courses independently. For 13 percent of mid-sized programs, the faculty do their development work independently; another 64 percent may choose whether or not to bring in instructional design help. (my note: this is the SCSU ‘case’)
Measuring Quality
Among the many possible quality metrics suggested by the researchers, the five adopted most frequently for internal monitoring were:
- Student achievement of program objectives (83 percent);
- Student retention and graduation rates (77 percent);
- Program reputation (48 percent);
- Faculty training (47 percent); and
- Student engagement measures (41 percent).
++++++++++++++++++++++
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=online+learning
Techniques for Unleashing Student Work from Learning Management Systems
http://ww2.kqed.org/mindshift/2015/02/13/techniques-for-unleashing-student-work-from-learning-management-systems/
the fundamental problem is that learning management systems are ultimately about serving the needs of institutions, not individual students.
In his manifesto on Connectivism, George Siemens writes that in Connectivist learning environments, the “pipes” of a course are more important than what flows through those pipes. The networks that students build are durable structures of lifelong learning, and they are more important
by having students own their learning spaces and democratize the means of production. Rather than forcing students to log in to an institutional LMS, I asked them to create their own websites, blogs, Twitter accounts and spaces on the open Web. In these spaces, students could curate links and connections and share their evolving ideas. Whatever they create is owned and maintained by them, not by me or by Harvard. They can keep their content for three months, three years, or the rest of their lives, so long as they continue to curate and move their published content as platforms change.
so, it is back what i claimed at the turn of the century: LMS were claimed to be invented to make the instructor’s life “easier”: instead of learning HTML, use LMS. My argument was that by the time one learns the interface of WebCT, one can learn HTML and HTML will be remain for the rest of their professional life, whereas WebCT got replaced by D2L and D2L will be replaced by another interface. I was labeled as “D2L hater” for such an opinion.
Now to the argument that LMS was a waste of instructors’ time, is added the new argument that it is also a waste of students’ time.
The way that Connected Courses deal with this challenge is by aggregation, sometimes also called syndication. All of the content produced on student blogs, websites, Twitter accounts and other social media accounts is syndicated to a single website. On the Flow page, every piece of content created by students, myself and teaching staff was aggregated into one place. We also had Blog and Twitter Hubs that displayed only long-form writing from blogs or microposts from Twitter. A Spotlight page highlighted some of the best writings from students.
This online learning environment had three important advantages. First, students owned their means of production. They weren’t writing in discussion forums in order to get 2 points for posting to the weekly prompt. They wrote to communicate with audiences within the class and beyond. Second, everyone’s thinking could be found in the same place, by looking at hashtags and our syndication engines on t509massive.org. Finally, this design allows our learning to be permeable to the outside world. Students could write for audiences they cared about: fellow librarians or English teachers or education technologists working in developing countries. And as our networks grew, colleagues form outside our classroom could share with us, by posting links or thoughts to the #t509massive hashtag.
Tumbleson, B. E., & Burke, J. (. J. (2013). Embedding librarianship in learning management systems: A how-to-do-it manual for librarians. Neal-Schuman, an imprint of the American Library Association.
|
 |
https://scsu.mplus.mnpals.net/vufind/Record/007650037
see also:
Kvenild, C., & Calkins, K. (2011).
Embedded Librarians: Moving Beyond One-Shot Instruction – Books / Professional Development – Books for Academic Librarians – ALA Store. ACRL. Retrieved from
http://www.alastore.ala.org/detail.aspx?ID=3413
p. 20 Embedding Academic and Research Libraries in the Curriculum: 2014-nmc-horizon-report-library-EN
xi. the authors are convinced that LMS embedded librarianship is becoming he primary and most productive method for connecting with college and university students, who are increasingly mobile.
xii. reference librarians engage the individual, listen, discover what is wanted and seek to point the stakeholder in profitable directions.
Instruction librarians, in contrast, step into the classroom and attempt to lead a group of students in new ways of searching wanted information.
Sometimes that instruction librarian even designs curriculum and teaches their own credit course to guide information seekers in the ways of finding, evaluating, and using information published in various formats.
Librarians also work in systems, emerging technologies, and digital initiatives in order to provide infrastructure or improve access to collections and services for tend users through the library website, discovery layers, etc. Although these arenas seemingly differ, librarians work as one.
xiii. working as an LMS embedded librarian is both a proactive approach to library instruction using available technologies and enabling a 24/7 presence.
1. Embeddedness involves more that just gaining perspective. It also allows the outsider to become part of the group through shared learning experiences and goals. 3. Embedded librarianship in the LMS is all about being as close as possible to where students are receiving their assignments and gaining instruction and advice from faculty members. p. 6 When embedded librarians provide ready access to scholarly electronic collections, research databases, and Web 2.0 tools and tutorials, the research experience becomes less frustrating and more focused for students. Undergraduate associate this familiar online environment with the academic world.
p. 7 describes embedding a reference librarian, which LRS reference librarians do, “partnership with the professor.” However, there is room for “Research Consultations” (p. 8). While “One-Shot Library Instruction Sessions” and “Information Literacy Credit Courses” are addressed (p. 809), the content of these sessions remains in the old-fashioned lecturing type of delivering the information.
p. 10-11. The manuscript points out clearly the weaknesses of using a Library Web site. The authors fail to see that the efforts of the academic librarians must go beyond Web page and seek how to easy the information access by integrating the power of social media with the static information residing on the library web page.
p. 12 what becomes disturbingly clear is that faculty focus on the mechanics of the research paper over the research process. Although students are using libraries, 70 % avoid librarians. Urging academic librarians to “take an active role and initiate the dialogue with faculty to close a divide that may be growing between them and faculty and between them and students.”
Four research context with which undergraduates struggle: big picture, language, situational context and information gathering.
p. 15 ACRL standards One and Three: librarians might engage students who rely on their smartphones, while keeping in mind that “[s]tudents who retrieve information on their smartphones may also have trouble understanding or evaluating how the information on their phone is ‘produced, organized, and disseminated’ (Standard One).
Standard One by its definition seems obsolete. If information is formatted for desktops, it will be confusing when on smart phones, And by that, it is not mean to adjust the screen size, but change the information delivery from old fashioned lecturing to more constructivist forms. e.g. http://web.stcloudstate.edu/pmiltenoff/bi/
p. 15 As for Standard Two, which deals with effective search strategies, the LMS embedded librarian must go beyond Boolean operators and controlled vocabulary, since emerging technologies incorporate new means of searching. As unsuccessfully explained to me for about two years now at LRS: hashtag search, LinkedIn groups etc, QR codes, voice recognition etc.
p. 16. Standard Five. ethical and legal use of information.
p. 23 Person announced in 2011 OpenClass compete with BB, Moodle, Angel, D2L, WebCT, Sakai and other
p. 24 Common Features: content, email, discussion board, , synchronous chat and conferencing tools (Wimba and Elluminate for BB)
p. 31 information and resources which librarians could share via LMS
– post links to dbases and other resources within the course. LIB web site, LibGuides or other subject-related course guidelines
– information on research concepts can be placed in a similar fashion. brief explanation of key information literacy topics (e.g difference between scholarly and popular periodical articles, choosing or narrowing research topics, avoiding plagiarism, citing sources properly whining required citations style, understanding the merits of different types of sources (Articles book’s website etc)
– Pertinent advice the students on approaching the assignment and got to rheank needed information
– Tutorials on using databases or planning searches step-by-step screencast navigating in search and Candida bass video search of the library did you a tour of the library
p. 33 embedded librarian being copied on the blanked emails from instructor to students.
librarian monitors the discussion board
p. 35 examples: students place specific questions on the discussion board and are assured librarian to reply by a certain time
instead of F2F instruction, created a D2L module, which can be placed in any course. videos, docls, links to dbases, links to citation tools etc. Quiz, which faculty can use to asses the the students
p. 36 discussion forum just for the embedded librarian. for the students, but faculty are encouraged to monitor it and provide content- or assignment-specific input
video tutorials and searching tips
Contact information email phone active IM chat information on the library’s open hours
p. 37 questions to consider
what is the status of the embedded librarian: T2, grad assistant
p. 41 pilot program. small scale trial which is run to discover and correct potential problems before
One or two faculty members, with faculty from a single department
Pilot at Valdosta State U = a drop-in informatil session with the hope of serving the information literacy needs of distance and online students, whereas at George Washington U, librarian contacted a distance education faculty member to request embedding in his upcoming online Mater’s course
p. 43 when librarians sense that current public services are not being fully utilized, it may signal that a new approach is needed.
pilots permit tinkering. they are all about risk-taking to enhance delivery
p. 57 markeing LMS ebedded Librarianship
library collections, services and facilities because faculty may be uncertain how the service benefits their classroom teaching and learning outcomes.
my note per
“it is incumbent upon librarians to promote this new mode of information literacy instruction.” it is so passe. in the times when digital humanities is discussed and faculty across campus delves into digital humanities, which de facto absorbs digital literacy, it is shortsighted for academic librarians to still limit themselves into “information literacy,” considering that lip service is paid for for librarians being the leaders in the digital humanities movement. If academic librarians want to market themselves, they have to think broad and start with topics, which ARE of interest for the campus faculty (digital humanities included) and then “push” their agenda (information literacy). One of the reasons why academic libraries are sinking into oblivion is because they are sunk already in 1990-ish practices (information literacy) and miss the “hip” trends, which are of interest for faculty and students. The authors (also paying lip services to the 21st century necessities), remain imprisoned to archaic content. In the times, when multi (meta) literacies are discussed as the goal for library instruction, they push for more arduous marketing of limited content. Indeed, marketing is needed, but the best marketing is by delivering modern and user-sought content.
the stigma of “academic librarians keep doing what they know well, just do it better.” Lip-services to change, and life-long learning. But the truth is that the commitment to “information literacy” versus the necessity to provide multi (meta) literacites instruction (Reframing Information Literacy as a metaliteracy) is minimizing the entire idea of academic librarians reninventing themselves in the 21st century.
Here is more: NRNT-New Roles for New Times
p. 58 According to the Burke and Tumbleson national LMS embedded librarianship survey, 280 participants yielded the following data regarding embedded librarianship:
- traditional F2F LMS courses – 69%
- online courses – 70%
- hybrid courses – 54%
- undergraduate LMS courses 61%
- graduate LMS courses 42%
of those respondents in 2011, 18% had the imitative started for four or more years, which place the program in 2007. Thus, SCSU is almost a decade behind.
p. 58 promotional methods:
- word of mouth
- personal invitation by librarians
- email by librarians
- library brochures
- library blogs
four years later, the LRS reference librarians’ report https://magic.piktochart.com/output/5704744-libsmart-stats-1415 has no mentioning of online courses, less to say embedded librarianship
my note:
library blog was offered numerous times to the LRS librarians and, consequently to the LRS dean, but it was brushed away, as were brushed away the proposals for modern institutional social media approach (social media at LRS does not favor proficiency in social media but rather sees social media as learning ground for novices, as per 11:45 AM visit to LRS social media meeting of May 6, 2015). The idea of the blog advantages to static HTML page was explained in length, but it was visible that the advantages are not understood, as it is not understood the difference of Web 2.0 tools (such as social media) and Web 1.0 tools (such as static web page). The consensus among LRS staff and faculty is to keep projecting Web 1.0 ideas on Web 2.0 tools (e.g. using Facebook as a replacement of Adobe Dreamweaver: instead of learning how to create static HTML pages to broadcast static information, use Facebook for fast and dirty announcement of static information). It is flabbergasting to be rejected offering a blog to replace Web 1.0 in times when the corporate world promotes live-streaming (http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/live-streaming-video-for-business/) as a way to promote services (academic librarians can deliver live their content)
p. 59 Marketing 2.0 in the information age is consumer-oriented. Marketing 3.0 in the values-driven era, which touches the human spirit (Kotler, Katajaya, and Setiawan 2010, 6).
The four Ps: products and services, place, price and promotion. Libraries should consider two more P’s: positioning and politics.
Mathews (2009) “library advertising should focus on the lifestyle of students. the academic library advertising to students today needs to be: “tangible, experiential, relatebale, measurable, sharable and surprising.” Leboff (2011, p. 400 agrees with Mathews: the battle in the marketplace is not longer for transaction, it is for attention. Formerly: billboards, magazines, newspapers, radio, tv, direct calls. Today: emphasize conversation, authenticity, values, establishing credibility and demonstrating expertise and knowledge by supplying good content, to enhance reputation (Leboff, 2011, 134). translated for the embedded librarians: Google goes that far; students want answers to their personal research dillemas and questions. Being a credentialed information specialist with years of experience is no longer enough to win over an admiring following. the embedded librarian must be seen as open and honest in his interaction with students.
p. 60 becoming attractive to end-users is the essential message in advertising LMS embedded librarianship. That attractivness relies upon two elements: being noticed and imparting values (Leboff, 2011, 99)
p. 61 connecting with faculty
p. 62 reaching students
- attending a synchronous chat sessions
- watching a digital tutorial
- posting a question in a discussion board
- using an instant messaging widget
be careful not to overload students with too much information. don’t make contact too frequently and be perceived as an annoyance and intruder.
p. 65. contemporary publicity and advertising is incorporating storytelling. testimonials differ from stories
p. 66 no-cost marketing. social media
low-cost marketing – print materials, fliers, bookmarks, posters, floor plans, newsletters, giveaways (pens, magnets, USB drives), events (orientations, workshops, contests, film viewings), campus media, digital media (lib web page, blogs, podcasts, social networking cites
p. 69 Instructional Content and Instructional Design
p. 70 ADDIE Model
Analysis: the requirements for the given course, assignments.
Ask instructors expectations from students vis-a-vis research or information literacy activities
students knowledge about the library already related to their assignments
which are the essential resources for this course
is this a hybrid or online course and what are the options for the librarian to interact with the students.
due date for the research assignment. what is the timeline for completing the assignment
when research tips or any other librarian help can be inserted
copy of the syllabus or any other assignment document
p. 72 discuss the course with faculty member. Analyze the instructional needs of a course. Analyze students needs. Create list of goals. E.g.: how to find navigate and use the PschInfo dbase; how to create citations in APA format; be able to identify scholarly sources and differentiate them from popular sources; know other subject-related dbases to search; be able to create a bibliography and use in-text citations in APA format
p. 74 Design (Addie)
the embedded component is a course within a course. Add pre-developed IL components to the broader content of the course. multiple means of contact information for the librarians and /or other library staff. link to dbases. link to citation guidance and or tutorial on APA citations. information on how to distinguish scholarly and popular sources. links to other dbases. information and guidance on bibliographic and in-text citations n APA either through link, content written within the course a tutorial or combination. forum or a discussion board topic to take questions. f2f lib instruction session with students
p. 76 decide which resources to focus on and which skills to teach and reinforce. focus on key resources
p. 77 development (Addie).
-building content;the “landing” page at LRS is the subject guides page. resources integrated into the assignment pages. video tutorials and screencasts
-finding existing content; google search of e.g.: “library handout narrowing topic” or “library quiz evaluating sources,” “avoiding plagiarism,” scholarly vs popular periodicals etc
-writing narrative content. p. 85
p. 87 Evaluation (Addie)
formative: to change what the embedded librarian offers to improve h/er services to students for the reminder of the course
summative at the end of the course:
p. 89 Online, F2F and Hybrid Courses
p. 97 assessment impact of embedded librarian.
what is the purpose of the assessment; who is the audience; what will focus on; what resources are available
p. 98 surveys of faculty; of students; analysis of student research assignments; focus groups of students and faculty
p. 100 assessment methods: p. 103/4 survey template
https://www.ets.org/iskills/about
https://www.projectsails.org/ (paid)
http://www.trails-9.org/
http://www.library.ualberta.ca/augustana/infolit/wassail/
p. 106 gathering LMS stats. Usability testing
examples: p. 108-9, UofFL : pre-survey and post-survey of studs perceptions of library skills, discussion forum analysis and interview with the instructor
p. 122 create an LMS module for reuse (standardized template)
p. 123 subject and course LibGuides, digital tutorials, PPTs,
research mind maps, charts, logs, or rubrics
http://creately.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Research-Proposal-mind-map-example.png
http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/tutorials/mindMap/sample.php (excellent)
or paper-based if needed: Concept Map Worksheet
Productivity Tools for Graduate Students: MindMapping http://libguides.gatech.edu/c.php
rubrics:
http://www.cornellcollege.edu/LIBRARY/faculty/focusing-on-assignments/tools-for-assessment/research-paper-rubric.shtml
http://gvsu.edu/library/instruction/research-guidance-rubric-for-assignment-design-4.htm
Creating Effective Information Literacy Assignments http://www.lib.jmu.edu/instruction/assignments.aspx
course handouts
guides on research concepts http://library.olivet.edu/subject-guides/english/college-writing-ii/research-concepts/
http://louisville.libguides.com/c.php
Popular versus scholar http://www.library.arizona.edu/help/tutorials/scholarly/guide.html
list of frequently asked q/s:
blog posts
banks of reference q/s
p. 124. Resistance or Receptivity
p. 133 getting admin access to LMS for the librarians.
p. 136 mobile students, dominance of born-digital resources
———————-
Summey T, Valenti S. But we don’t have an instructional designer: Designing online library instruction using isd techniques. Journal Of Library & Information Services In Distance Learning [serial online]. January 1, 2013;Available from: Scopus®, Ipswich, MA. Accessed May 11, 2015.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedselc%26AN%3dedselc.2-52.0-84869866367%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
instructional designer library instruction using ISD techniques
Shank, J. (2006). The blended librarian: A job announcement analysis of the newly emerging position of instructional design librarian. College And Research Libraries, 67(6), 515-524.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedselc%26AN%3dedselc.2-52.0-33845291135%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
The Blended Librarian_ A Job Announcement Analysis of the Newly Emerging Position of Instructional Design Librarian
Macklin, A. (2003). Theory into practice: Applying David Jonassen’s work in instructional design to instruction programs in academic libraries. College And Research Libraries, 64(6), 494-500.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedselc%26AN%3dedselc.2-52.0-7044266019%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
Theory into Practice_ Applying David Jonassen_s Work in Instructional Design to Instruction Programs in Academic Libraries
Walster, D. (1995). Using Instructional Design Theories in Library and Information Science Education. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, (3). 239.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedsjsr%26AN%3dedsjsr.10.2307.40323743%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
Using Instructional Design Theories in Library and Information Science Education
Mackey, T. )., & Jacobson, T. ). (2011). Reframing information literacy as a metaliteracy. College And Research Libraries, 72(1), 62-78.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedselc%26AN%3dedselc.2-52.0-79955018169%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
Reframing Information Literacy as a metaliteracy
Nichols, J. (2009). The 3 directions: Situated information literacy. College And Research Libraries, 70(6), 515-530.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dedselc%26AN%3dedselc.2-52.0-73949087581%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
The 3 Directions_ Situated literacy
—————
Journal of Library & Information Services in Distance Learning (J Libr Inform Serv Dist Learn)
https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1533-290X_Journal_of_Library_Information_Services_in_Distance_Learning
http://conference.acrl.org/
http://www.loex.org/conferences.php
http://www.ala.org/lita/about/igs/distance/lit-igdl
————
https://magic.piktochart.com/output/5704744-libsmart-stats-1415
A Blend-Online listserv thread regarding the choice of LMS and the future of LMS
Schoology HEd – Digital Learning Ecosystem (March 2015) (PDF document)
From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert Tousignant
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 1:41 PM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection
I’ve been reviewing this thread and thought I’d introduce a new player… Schoology is getting the attention of the analyst community and gobbling up the SIIA Codie awards for best learning platform the last couple of years. (Please note, I am not an impartial observer and I do a horse in the race)
The attached document includes information that will explain a new paradigm for evaluating an LMS that we see being adopted more and more – a move from a focus on utility (features and functions) to one focused standards, interoperability and the user experience (UI/UX).
Feel free to reach out directly if I can be of assistance.
Robert Tousignant
Sr. Director
Schoology Higher Education
O: (212)213-8333 x69
M: (617)838-1366
rtousignant@schoology.com
Colorado State University’s Global Campus Announces Strategic Partnership with Schoology
From: Edward Garay <garay@UIC.EDU>
Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv <BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Date: Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 2:27 PM
To: “BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU” <BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection
These days, I tend to favor LMS Review/Selection initiatives that take one to two years to complete, but as always, it depends on the institution, its readiness to spec the needs of their faculty/students and evaluate viable options, as well as the campus resources available to nurture a possible smooth LMS platform transition. I like pointing out to the well-executed recent LMS selection initiatives carried out by UCF, Northwestern, Indiana, Harvard and Dartmouth, although there are many others.
I am also fond of Educause Review 2014 article on Selecting a Learning Management System: Advice from an Academic Perspective available at http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/selecting-learning-management-system-advice-academic-perspective
—
— Ed Garay
University of Illinois at Chicago
UIC School of Public Health
http://www.twitter.com/garay
*** Attend the FACULTY SUMMER INSTITUTE :: Wed-Fri May 27-29 at Urbana-Champaign
#pedagogy #BlendedLearning #classroom #teaching #OnlineLearning #EdTech
http://go.illinois.edu/facultysummerinstitute
_____________________________
From: Hap Aziz <hapaziz@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2015 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection
To: <blend-online@listserv.educause.edu>
That’s sounds like a similar timeframe to what we had at UB when we moved from Blackboard to Canvas. While LTI didn’t not play a large role in the decision-making process as we changed our LMS, it is now a central consideration as we look to acquire any new app functionality for our learning environment.
I’m setting up an area in the IMS forum area for LTI policy discussion. I’ll share that location with the group shortly so we can take some of the in-the-weeds discussion offline here.
Hap Aziz
Associate Vice President
University of Bridgeport
http://bridgeport.edu
Connected Learning Innovation Community
IMS Global Learning Consortium
http://imsglobal.org
On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Sam Bachert <BachertS@sanjuancollege.edu> wrote:
Hap,
The selection process started in January of 2013 and the task force voted at the end of May of 2013 unanimously for Canvas so about 5 months. By October we started training faculty in preparation for the Spring 2014 semester what was amazing about our transition to Canvas was that we had everyone moved out of ANGEL by start of Summer 14 so we only had 1 semester where we were supporting both ANGEL and Canvas. The use of LTI integrations and Canvas makes our jobs a lot easier to support the various tools that faculty are adopting for their classes – it also makes it a lot easier for faculty to integrate other technologies and keep them in the LMS or have single sign on so it is more seamless for students.
Thanks, Sam
Samuel R. Bachert
Manager, Online Services
ellucian®
San Juan College
4601 College Boulevard
Farmington, NM 87402
Voice: 505.566.3310 Mobile: 505.609.0573 Fax: 505.566.3570
bacherts@sanjuancollege.edu * samuel.bachert@ellucian.com
http://www.ellucian.com
Follow us:
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email from your system. Thank you.
From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Hap Aziz
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2015 7:09 PM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: Re: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection
Hey, Sam, long time no see! Do you know about how long your whole selection process took? Also, does LTI conformance make your job with academic technology more straightforward to deal with?
Hap Aziz
Associate Vice President
University of Bridgeport
http://bridgeport.edu
Connected Learning Innovation Community
IMS Global Learning Consortium
http://imsglobal.org
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Sam Bachert <BachertS@sanjuancollege.edu> wrote:
JeJe,
I am at San Juan College and we also recently went through the selection process for a new LMS and like others who have commented switched to Canvas (from ANGEL). We ended up with a selection team that was primarily faculty, a couple students, and a handful of technology staff that reviewed the various LMSs and then made our final decision. If you would like I can get you the contact information for the faculty who assisted on the selection team.
Thanks,
Sam
Samuel R. Bachert
Director of Academic Technology
ellucian®
San Juan College
4601 College Boulevard
Farmington, NM 87402
Voice: 505.566.3310 Mobile: 505.609.0573 Fax: 505.566.3570
bacherts@sanjuancollege.edu * samuel.bachert@ellucian.com
http://www.ellucian.com
Follow us:
CONFIDENTIALITY: This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email from your system. Thank you.
From: The EDUCAUSE Blended and Online Learning Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Noval, JeJe (LLU)
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 9:25 PM
To: BLEND-ONLINE@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [BLEND-ONLINE] Faculty Involvement in LMS Selection
Hello Colleagues,
Were any of you, faculty members, involved in the learning management selection process of your educational institution? If so, would it be possible to interview you in the future for a research study?
Best,
JeJe Noval, MS, RD
Assistant Professor
Loma Linda University
