Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
IMS of the Future
by Lesley BlickerDirector of IMS Learning and Next Generation Technology, Office of the Chancellor
Presentation at the Chief Academic and Student Affairs Officers – Colleges and Universities Deans Meeting, May 28, 2009
2
Charge of the IMS of the Future Work Group
The charge of the IMS-F work group is to make recommendations regarding IMS options for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system for September 1, 2012 and beyond. No assumption to be made yet that we will go off D2L.
The work group will draft the system’s business requirements and evaluate the current IMS business/delivery model and make recommendations for going forward.
3
Sponsorship
IMS* of the Future (IMS-F) work group established under the auspices of the IMS Advisory Council. Student and faculty bargaining units have reps appointed to the Council
Recommendations of the work group made to the IMS Advisory Council
Close collaboration and consultation maintained with the MnOnline Council and bargaining units
* IMS: Instructional Management System, such as D2L, Blackboard, eCollege, Moodle
4
Scope of Work/Recommendations
IMS Business or Delivery Model, which could include:– Number of IMS platforms which should be
supported by the Office of the Chancellor– Hosting arrangements – Number of databases– Distributed vs. non-distributed solutions (focus on
one piece of software vs. a combined set of software platforms)
5
Scope of Work/Recommendations
Recommendation of related/additional products critically needed in conjunction with an IMS (LOR, eReserves)
Product evaluation and selection (Open Source vs. proprietary products, open vs. closed architecture)
Pilots Technical support arrangements Funding sources to support recommendations
6
2003: IMS (D2L) with Limited Integration
IMSISRS LDAP
Portal
7
2009: IMS with Many Technologies
Digital MediaSystem
(streaming, CMS)
eReserves
LOR
Web Conferencing
IMS and Critically Needed Technologies (In Scope)
IMSISRS
LDAP
Portal
eFolioRespondus
IMS and Existing
Technologies
YouTube
Wikipedia
GoogleDocs
eTextbooks
iTunesU
Wikis
IMS Extensibility with Social Technologies
8
Assumptions/Process Commitments
Broad-based participation throughout the project; iterative input seeking from myriad stakeholder groups
Multiple avenues for input (Wiki, WebEx sessions, regional or campus visits)
Open, transparent communication process to be established
9
Overriding Question to Answer
What will mainstream faculty want to use?
10
What’s Been Accomplished:Year 1 (targeted completion 8-31-09)
Pre-planning
Summer, early fall 2008
Work group formed; educate themselves about current data,
Trends in IMSs and relevanttechnologies
Fall 2008
Work group develops:1. List of “what’s missing”
2. RFI questions
Winter 2009
Work group:1. Studies Open Source products2. Develops process for faculty
Input (questionnaire) and student Input (conferences)
Winter 2009
Faculty and student input
gathered
Spring 2009
Open Source pilots recommended to IMS
Council, approved
Evaluate input into“business requirements”
Summer 2009
Configure Moodle pilots
11
Objectives Fiscal Year 2010
Spring 2009Fall 2009
Establish which pilots will be conducted, develop common measurements
Conduct pilots Continue to gather input from stakeholders,
conduct campus visits More in-depth study of available products
against requirements
12
Objectives Fiscal Year 2011
Spring 2009Fall 2009
Assessment of product and hosting options against requirements
RFI and/or RFP Evaluation Selection of new IMS and hosting model
13 Spring 2009Fall 2009
Migration and Implementation (to be ready for 9-1-12)– Training– Begin migration, course conversions– Integrations (ISRS, LDAP)– System-wide support decisions– Develop SLAs
Objectives Fiscal Year 2012
14
Stakeholder Groups with Whom to Communicate and from Whom to Gather Input
D2L Campus Site Administrators
D2L Campus Trainers
IMS AdvisoryCouncil
CIOs, CAOs, Deans
MnOnline Council/Contacts
Faculty
Students
eLearning Directors
Customized Training
Campus Visits Fall
2009
15
What the Work Group Said Was Needed in a Future IMS
Interoperability and extensibility (open architecture) to allow for integration with host of existing applications such as Web 2.0 apps, student-created content apps, live video conferencing, audio streams, etc.
Better means of tracking learning outcomes to close the loop with accreditation reports – better analytical tools
Blending or integrating with 3D virtual worlds
16
What the Work Group Said Was Needed in a Future IMS
Good interface/viewability for portable content, via cell phones, PDAs
Easy content migration in and out of system
Content independence, streaming media (have a system for that)
Integration or better integration with electronic reserves. eFolio and ISRS (e.g., get grades back into it)
17
Faculty Feedback
Spring 2009 a similar questionnaire was issued to both MSCF and IFO faculty
558 IFO faculty responded (composite results made available)
746 MSCF faculty responded (results not ready yet)
18
IFO Faculty Feedback on Tools Rated Highest (558 responses) >60%
Gradebook
Assignment submission
News or front page posting features
Quiz or exam
Instructional notes (content management)
60% of respondents rated these tools as a 4 or 5, on a scale of 0-5, 5 being the most valuable
19
Asynchronous text-based discussions (discussion board)
Project or discussion groups
Polls/surveys
Content release controls
40% of respondents rated these tools as a 4 or 5, on a scale of 0-5, 5 being the most valuable
IFO Faculty Feedback on Tools Rated Highest (558 responses) >40%
20
Rubrics ( 35%)
Video and audio podcasts ( 30.2%)
Outcome-based learning tools ( 23%)
Wikis (17%)
IM or text chat (16.5%)
Instructional Tools Rated Next Highest by IFO Faculty (558 responses) - Other
Ratings indicate the percentage of people ranking these tools as a 4 or 5 on a 5 point scale (5 being most valuable)
21
Clicker Response Systems ( 16.5%)
Voice-based discussion (15%)
Online whiteboard (14%)
Online learning games (13.6%)
Blogs ( 11.6%)
Instructional Tools Rated Next Highest by IFO Faculty (558 responses) –Cont’d
22
Being able to request features (58.2%)
Importing course modules from publishers (56.9%)
Integrating Web 2.0 tools via easy widget (48.1%)
Using IMS to prepare department, programmatic or accreditation reports (45.7%)
Course-based news feed (33.5%)
Use IMS with handheld devices ( 29.8%)
Integrating with immersive 3D environments (9.7%)
Other Faculty Feature Ratings by IFO Respondents – 558 Responses
23
IFO Respondents:Plans for Making Use of IMS Next 3 Years
Decrease Same Increase
Web Enhanced 3.8 47.6 48.7
Hybrid 6.4 45.5 48.1
Fully Online 9.6 45.5 44.9
24
Student Feedback
Process Used
– In conjunction with MSUSA and MSCSA, questions were developed by the IMS-F work group and distributed in advance of the two student spring conferences
– Two breakout sessions per conference were conducted in focus group format. Input from approximately 80 students in total was obtained
– Further input will be sought next year from students via campus visits
25
Student Feedback
Wide discrepancy in how faculty use IMS, wish they used it more consistently across any campus. Bothered that system is paying for it and most faculty don’t use it
Want alerts! To cell phone, to email, anytime there’s something new to look at in the IMS (i.e., they missed a quiz)
If have multiple classes, dislike you have to log into separate courses
Reported on what they liked/disliked specific to D2L (paging takes forever, assignments rejected due to size – bugs)
26
Student Feedback
Want to access technologies right in IMS that you use for assignments
Ability to email other students in class
Teachers complain to them a lot about using IMS (D2L); they present it in a way that colors the students’ experience
Many said they don’t want online elements in a face-to-face class (like taking an exam in the IMS at home)
Geographic connection an issue – uneven depending where you access the Internet and how you access it
