Meeting Minutes - University of Cincinnati · v. The recommendation today is just for pilot, not to transition to Canvas. eLearning Committee Committee Co-chair Chris Edwards AVP,

eLearning Committee

Meeting Minutes Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 Time: 8:30 AM – 10:30 AM Location: University Hall, Room 454

Current Membership Roster

Present: Joey Lyon, Josh Heinrich, Tina Meagher, Cynthia Ris, Patty Goedl, Melody Clark, Eugene Rutz, Julie Breen, Pat Reid, Vernon Jackson, Kate York, Greg Lloyd, Emanuel Lewis, Dave Rathbun, Mike Mitchum, Paul Foster, Pam Rankey, Chris Edwards Guests: Jamie Byrne Apologies: BJ Zirger, Leslie Schick, Bryan Smith, Warren Huff, Dawn Clineman, Ruth Benander, Michelle Conda, Kent Meloy, JP Leong, Steve McKinney, Christine Street, Cecily Goode, Bill Nicholson, Sarah Schroeder, Matt Rota, Adam Chekour, Joni Torsella

Review and approve minutes (attached) (Chris Edwards) i. Kate York was inadvertently left off the apologies list. Cynthia Ris

provided one change and Melody Clark sent text to correct a mis-statement in the minutes. With those changes, the minutes were unanimously approved.

LMS Task Force Recommendation (attached - Paul Foster, Greg Lloyd, Todd Foley)

i. Chris thanked Jamie Byrne, the Project Manager, Paul Foster, Greg Lloyd and Todd Foley for their leadership in bringing this recommendation forward.

ii. The task force met with all concerned groups on campus, such as Faculty Senate, Faculty Senate IT, Counsel of Deans, IT@UC Governance, student groups, etc.

iii. Paul reviewed the risk heat map with the committee and discussed the risks listed. It included pilot and transition risks.

iv. UC still has deep concerns about both of the current Bb products. They still have yet to meet any of their milestones.

v. The recommendation today is just for pilot, not to transition to Canvas.

eLearning Committee Committee Co-chair Chris Edwards AVP, eLearning, UCIT [email protected] (513) 558-5233 Committee Co-Chair Joni Torsella Assoc. Professor, CEAS [email protected] (513) 556-1224

The eLearning Committee reviews and makes recommendations on eLearning-related strategies, standards, technologies, and policies that support the university’s Third Century goal to Excel in eLearning. The committee will be led and supported by co-chairs (AVP for eLearning Technology & Faculty Senate Appointee) who will also serve as the representatives to the IT Council.

The work of the eLearning Committee will be supported by the following subcommittees:

Accessibility Subcommittee

Learning Management System (LMS) Subcommittee

Instructional Design & Pedagogy Subcommittee

Online Learning Subcommittee

Video and Digital Media Meeting Schedule: Committee meets the first Wednesday of the month:

https://uc.box.com/s/jkgcnioabreyw3iv3fg2j6cmqbsy7z4a

mailto:[email protected]

vi. If approved, the pilot will start in summer semester 2017 with a small group with intentionally chosen instructors. At end of pilot, participating faculty will be allowed to continue with Canvas for fall semester.

vii. Data from the summer small pilot will be brought back to the eLearning Committee for another decision point to decide if a larger pilot should go forward.

viii. If first phase pilot is successful, a larger pilot will be conducted in spring 2018 with 100 instructors, 3000 – 5000 students. Cynthia suggested that faculty participation and feedback who are not early adopters and engaged with eLearning will be important as well for the larger pilot.

ix. UC will continue to evaluate Bb product through the summer exploratory pilot. x. There are concerns about students being forced into two systems (Bb and the Canvas pilot) and

the frustration they will feel. Faculty may choose to opt-in but students don’t have that choice. xi. One of the risks and concerns is that by having opt-in pilots over multiple semesters, the pilots

will still be occurring during the HLC process as well. The Office of the Provost also shares those concerns. Scaling support resources to support pilots simultaneously with on-going Bb courses is another concern, especially for accessibility accommodations. Student Affairs is going to help assess the accessibility of Canvas before the pilot starts.

xii. Emanuel Lewis suggests that there be a different support intake process for the pilot with designated support staff identified. Chris suggested there may be a 1-1 eLearning staff member assigned to the pilot faculty.

xiii. The committee also discussed the cloud failure risks. xiv. Marketing and communication will be key to helping faculty and students understand why we

are piloting alternative options to Bb. xv. Fall 2018 would also be opt-in for Canvas. If Canvas is selected, spring 2019 would be the

semester when it is a requirement. xvi. Patty Goedl motioned for the Canvas pilot to start in summer semester 2017; Tina Meagher 2nd,

the motion. The committee voted unanimously to move forward with the small summer pilot of Canvas.

Revised LMS Retention Policy Draft (see attachment – Greg Lloyd & Cynthia Ris) i. Greg asked for feedback and recommendations on the draft policy. They will take this policy

back to Faculty Senate IT this month, likely the full Faculty Senate in their April meeting, and then bring it back to eLearning Committee for a vote in May.

ii. Cynthia suggested that the Bb/eLearning team widely publicize the policy and how it will impact faculty. She suggested workshops in addition to the other communication methods.

iii. The LMS subcommittee has not decided how many years of data would be migrated to another LMS. The current retention policy is likely to change significantly with a new LMS.

iv. Pam Rankey suggested that a paragraph be included in the current policy to reference that it may change with a new LMS system.

v. Send feedback on the policy to Greg or Cynthia.

Online Learner Readiness Pilot Project Issue-Action Form (attached - Melody Clark) i. Updated Draft Pilot Report (attached)

ii. 43 students in CECH and UCCC online programs participated in the pilot. There is a URL in the report for more detailed information regarding the online learning readiness assessment tool used in the pilot (including assessment scales and sample student report.)

iii. In deploying the assessment tool, it can be embedded in a specific Bb course; but probably would be an independent Bb course or link so that it could be available to use as a screening tool before classes start.

iv. eLearning needs to determine how this tool will work with the new recruitment mechanism via Cincinnati Online.

v. Cynthia Ris suggested that the tools available could be useful for more students than just strictly online students. It could be useful for all students to help them assess where they are. How will it be deployed? Mel said the recommendation for use and deployment should be at the local level to enable customization. There will be a cost associated with scaling it across the university. The goal for this initial phase is to make it available to online programs.

vi. Eugene cautioned that deployment needs to target appropriate groups. It was acknowledged that framework for readiness assessment and intervention for students is unique at university, college and program level. The intent of the tool is to standardize university-level content and provide flexibility across different audiences.

vii. eLearning has requested funding from DL fees but other sources will need to be explored if it is moved beyond 100% online programs and scaled across the university.

viii. Option A from the issue-action form is the motion put forth for vote: Greg Lloyd motioned the committee to accept option A; Kate York 2nd the motion. The motion to accept option A unanimously passed.

Video Strategy Task Force Issue-Action Form (attached – Tina Meagher) i. A working group created the 7-Circles of Video Use (attached) to provide guidance and help for

faculty and students to understand which tool is appropriate for specific situations. Tina provided several examples to help the committee understand the material. It also includes information to help users understand the TEACH Act and Fair Use policies when using video.

ii. Tina is asking the committee to endorse forming a Video Task Force. They will accept volunteers for membership and Tina will reach out to known heavy users. Forming the task force in addition to the existing video subcommittee will help align with the eLearning Strategic Plan. Paul Foster and Pam Rankey suggested using the existing video committee and pull in other resources when needed instead of creating another task force. Video and captioning also needs to align with the EIT Accessibility program as well.

iii. Tina changed the motion to ask the committee to endorse the goals outlined in the plan she submitted today instead of forming another task force. Chris Edwards motioned the committee to accept the goals outlined today to be undertaken by the existing Video and Digital Media Subcommittee; Dave Rathbun 2nd the motion. The committee voted unanimously to approve the motion.

ID/P Subcommittee Charter (attached - Pat Reid) i. Pat submitted a revised charter and asked the committee to adopt it. The committee asked for

clarification on who makes design decisions. Pat clarified that the ID/P committee will be a resource for faculty but colleges have final determination on course design.

ii. How does the one vote for each college get enacted when disagreement between ID and faculty? Pam Rankey explained that is not an issue because IDs typically work closely with faculty.

iii. Term limits for IDs? Also has not been an issue but will be considered in the future. iv. Pat will remove the word “policy” in the following sentence of the Mission Statement:

developing policy and processes to ensure compliance and accessibility (such as Quality

Matters, Copyright, Fair Use, TEACH Act, ADA 504/508, etc.).

v. Pat will update the charter to reflect the discussion today and resubmit it to the eLearning Committee for endorsement in the April meeting.

Teach Act Policy Task Force Update (Chris Edwards) i. Mark Konecny is making the rounds to all the required groups to vet the policy. One piece of

constructive feedback he received from the IT Council meeting was to develop strong ties with CET&L to help operationalize the policy.

Personal Response System Task Force Update (Mike Mitchum) i. Mike had to leave the meeting early but Chris gave a very brief update for him. The PRS pilot

will probably not be in place by fall semester. Mike and Chris are working with Turning Point, the current vendor, to negotiate to make the clickers free for students since they are likely to become obsolete. Mike will present his full update at the beginning of the eLearning Committee in the April meeting.

CEEMS Project (Josh Heinrich) i. Moved to the April Meeting due to time constraints

Trainer Goals (Joey Lyon) i. Moved to the April Meeting due to time constraints

Cielo24 Statewide Agreement (Dave Rathbun) i. Moved to the April Meeting due to time constraints

Updated IT@UC Governance Bylaws (Chris Edwards) i. Moved to the April Meeting due to time constraints

Subcommittee and Project Updates (see attached forms)

Adjournment i. Committee adjourned promptly at 10:00 am.

https://uc.app.box.com/files/0/f/16977318300/Governance_Bylaws

______________________________ Date: 2/28/2017 ______________________________ ______________________________ Quotation Number: 201274-S __________________ __ __________ Quotation Will Close: August 19, 2016 2:00 PM EST

PURCHASE ORDER PRICE INQUIRY Please quote on the following goods and/or services in accordance with the attached pages. Learning Management System Software & Implemetation Services • FOB Delivered terms will apply to any award resulting from this price inquiry unless bidder states alternate terms

in the following space: ___________________________________________________________________ • University payment terms are either 2%10 days net 45 made by electronic ACH deposit, net 45 days made by

electronic ACH deposits, or net 60 days via mailed check. Indicate below the pay terms to apply to any award resulting from this bid. (Check only one box.)

Bidder agrees to payment terms of 2% 10 days net 45 made by electronic, ACH deposit (bidder must complete the form located at http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/af/controller/docs/EFTAgreementCTX.pdf ) Bidder agrees to payment terms of net 45 made by electronic, ACH deposit (bidder must complete the form located at http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/af/controller/docs/EFTAgreementCTX.pdf ) Standard terms of net 60 days apply, payment via mailed check.

(Net 60 days shall apply if no box is checked.) THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE EXECUTED BY BIDDER In compliance with the above invitation for bids and subject to all the conditions thereof, the undersigned agrees, if this bid is accepted within a reasonable time from date of closing, to furnish any or all of the items upon which prices are quoted, in accordance with the specifications applying, at the price set opposite each item.

Sign here:____________________________________________ (Name of Company) Per_________________________/_________________________ Signature Type Name of Individual who Signed Title_________________________________________________

All items no bid

FOR BUYER USE ONLY

No interpretive changes

Terms Code

FOB Code

Delivery Days

Misc.

Delivery, to destination as shown above, of any or all of the items to be completed within____________days from receipt of order.

Department of Purchasing and Materiel Management Services

(Important: See next page for mailing and hand-delivery address)

PRICE INQUIRY

http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/af/controller/docs/EFTAgreementCTX.pdf

http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/af/controller/docs/EFTAgreementCTX.pdf

Quotation No. «CONTNUM»

2

GENERAL CONDITIONS AND TERMS FOR ANY AGREEMENT THAT RESULTS FROM THIS BID

1. Proposals to be considered must be received at the Hand delivery address

identified on this page prior to the date and time designated in this inquiry, and none will be accepted thereafter. If only a date is shown, bids will be received until the close of the business day. Be certain to sign and return this form.

2. Instructions, manufacturer’s catalog numbers, etc. where shown herein, are for descriptive purposes to guide the bidder in interpreting the standard of quality, design, and performance desired, and shall not be construed to exclude proposals based on furnishing other equivalent types of material or service. However, any substitution or departure proposed by bidder must be clearly noted and described, otherwise it will be understood the bid intends to meet exactly the specifications.

3. Samples requested must be furnished free of expense, as instructed by the Buyer, and, if not destroyed or required in connection with the award or delivery, will, upon request, be returned at the bidder’s expense. Right is

reserved to mutilate or destroy any sample if considered necessary for testing purposes.

4. Prices quoted, unless otherwise stated by bidder, are to include all charges for transportation, packing, crates, containers, etc. necessary to complete delivery as designated herein.

5. Right is reserved to accept, or reject any, or all, bids, combination of items, or lot, and to waive formalities not inconsistent with law.

6. In case of error in extending the total amount of bid, the unit price will govern.

7. U.C. terms are 2% 10 days net 45 by electronic ACH deposit, or net 45 by electronic ACH deposit, or net 60 days via mailed check. Payments are from receipt of invoice or from delivery and acceptance of goods, whichever is later.

8. If you do not respond to three(3) bid inquiries, your firm may be removed from future bid lists.

A. In the event of an award, the contractor must agree to all of the conditions

and terms specified therein, and on the Bid Inquiry that preceded the award. Direct all correspondence relative to the purchase to the Purchasing Department, University of Cincinnati, PO Box 210089, Cincinnati OH 45221-0089. Prices cannot be altered during the term unless that was a condition of the contractor’s bid. Unless otherwise stated, unit prices are inclusive of all costs.

B. If any contract does not agree with your quotation, contact the Buyer before performance begins. Prior to performance, the University may require additional information from the Contractor in order to insure that the Contractor is qualified and that the product or service offered will meet the need for which it is intended.

C. Notwithstanding any other provision in the purchase order, the University reserves the right to cancel any order at any time prior to delivery without penalty.

D. Goods not conforming with the purchase order will not be accepted. The Buyer must approve any substitution of non-conforming goods prior to shipment (in writing).

E. Terms of the purchase order cannot be modified, altered, or changed without the specific written approval of the Buyer. If the Contractor proposes any different or additional terms, they will constitute a counter offer to the University and no new contract will come into existence unless proposed in writing to the Buyer and specifically accepted by that person as evidenced by signature agreeing to those specific terms. The purchase order is expressly limited to its terms and cannot be varied unilaterally by Contractor.

F. In the event of default by the Contractor, including failure to deliver any item requested within a reasonable time after acceptance of the contract, or if the University rightfully rejects the goods or services or revokes acceptance, the University may without waiving any other remedy permitted by law, make covering purchases of goods or services and hold Contractor liable for all additional costs incurred. Further, in such event,

the University, at its option, may be relieved of any duty to accept such items as are subsequently delivered.

G. Contractor may not assign or delegate duties under the purchase order without written approval of the Buyer, nor may Contractor change sources of supply or brands identified in the contract without written approval of the Buyer.

H. Contractor warrants that the goods covered by the purchase order are of merchantable quality and fit for any intended purpose disclosed by the University to the Contractor or as represented by Contractor to the University. Contractor agrees to reimburse the University for any losses or consequential damages which it incurs because of defective goods or services. Further, Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the University harmless from any claims made by third persons arising from injury caused by allegedly defective goods or personal services and any consequential damages claimed. Said warranties are in addition to any express or implied warranties of Contractor.

I. The University shall have a reasonable time after delivery to inspect the goods delivered or services rendered under the contract and to reject or revoke acceptance of any not conforming with the terms of the agreement. Rejected goods will be returned to Contractor at Contractor’s expense. Rejected services will be reworked and all costs associated with the rework will be charged to Contractor.

J. In the event of any proceedings in bankruptcy or insolvency of Contractor, the University may, at its option, cancel any unfilled releases under the purchase order without liability, whatsoever.

K. Quantities delivered must equal exact amounts released unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Buyer. Installment shipments are discouraged unless specified. If the price for any item is reduced by the Contractor to a price below the price stated in the purchase order prior to delivery, the selling price applicable shall be reduced to give the University the benefit of such lowered price.

L. The purchase order will set forth the entire agreement between the parties and shall be construed in conformance with the laws of the State of Ohio.

Mail address: Purchasing Department University of Cincinnati PO Box 210089 Cincinnati OH 45221-0089

Hand delivery address: Purchasing Department Rm 320 University Hall University of Cincinnati 51 Goodman Dr Cincinnati OH 45221-0089


3

All provisions of the Revised Code of the State of Ohio, and the Ohio Administrative Code, insofar as they apply to contracting by a state university, are made a part of the agreement.

M. Where the contractor is manufacturing goods incorporating or making use of any trade, service or identifying mark of the University, Contractor will be required to obtain authorization and be licensed through the University Licensing Program.

N. No Contractor or Subcontractor or any person acting on their behalf shall, by reason of Race, Color, Sex, Age, Handicap, National Origin or Ancestry discriminate in employment in the performance of work under this contract.

O. Contractor shall comply with provision of Executive Order 11246 as amended by Executive Order 11375 as supplemented by Department of Labor Regulation 41 CFR Part 60, the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act (18 USC 874) as supplemented in Department of Labor Regulation 29 CFR Part 3, the Bacon-Davis Act (40 USC 276a et.seq.), Sections 103 and 107 of the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standard Act (40 USC 327-330) as supplemented by Department of Labor Regulation 29 CFR Part 5, and the Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 USC 1857 et.seq.) to the extent that they are applicable. Contractor shall comply with CERCLA, SARA, and all other federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations in performing this contract.

P. Contractor warrants that it is not subject to an unresolved finding for recovery under section 9.24 of the Ohio Revised Code. If the warranty is deemed to be false, the purchase order or term contract is void ab initio and the Contractor must immediately repay to the University any funds paid under this order or contract.

Q. Debarment: By accepting or performing any part of an order the Contractor certifies to the best of its knowledge and belief that it and its principals are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal or State of Ohio department or agency. Debarment, suspension, or proposed debarment by the Federal or State of Ohio Government constitutes grounds for automatic termination of any order. Further, Contractor shall provide immediate written notice to Buyer in the event that during the performance of an order, Contractor or any of Contractor’s principals is debarred, suspended, or proposed for debarment by the Federal Government or any State Government.

R. Contractor must comply with Rules and Regulations of the University of Cincinnati relative to Affirmative Action and Contract Compliance.

S. No Agreement, Purchase Order, policy, or contract of any nature is automatically renewable. All transactions terminate in accordance with the limitations of the specific period stated and/or in the event that no chronological limit is established by the expiration date of budget funds as set forth on this purchase order or term contract. In addition, when an agreement requires periodic payments by the University out of funds appropriated by the legislature of the State of Ohio extending beyond the expiration of a legislative funding period, the agreement shall be subject to cancellation by the University without penalty if funding is not provided by the State.

T. Taxes: The University of Cincinnati is a state university of the State of Ohio. As such, it is exempt from most taxes, including State Sales and Use taxes, Real Estate taxes and Personal Property taxes. The University

is without authority to pay such taxes if billed by Contractor. If any taxes must be paid by Contractor, they should have been reflected in the quotation. The University’s federal taxpayer identification number is 31-6000989.

U. Work for Hire: Contractor and University intend the Work and any and all documentation or other products and results of the services to be rendered by Contractor hereunder to be a work made for hire. Contractor acknowledges and agrees that the Work (and all rights therein) belongs to and shall be the sole and exclusive property of University. If for any reason the Work would not be considered a work-for-hire under applicable law, Contractor does hereby sell, assign, and transfer to University, its successors and assigns, the entire right, title and interest in and to the copyright in the Work and any registrations and copyright applications relating thereto and any renewals and extensions thereof, and in and to all works based upon, derived from, or incorporating the Work, and in an to all income, royalties, damages, claims and payments now or hereafter due or payable with respect thereto, and in and to all causes of action, either in law or in equity for past, present, or future infringement based on the copyrights, and in and to all rights corresponding to the foregoing throughout the world.

V. The Contractor agrees to protect, defend, and save the University harmless against any demand for payment for the use of any patented material, process, article or device that may enter in to the manufacture, construction, or form a part of the work covered by the agreement.

W. Statutory Conformity: Contractor warrants and represents that goods covered by the contract have been manufactured and transported in accordance with all requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act and all other applicable federal, state, and municipal laws, rules and regulations.

X. Billings: By postal mail, send original invoice to: Invoices University of Cincinnati PO Box 212000 Cincinnati OH 45221-2000 By email, send invoice to: [email protected] Invoices must include the University Purchase Order number, that authorized delivery of the merchandise or service, and your Federal Tax I.D. number. Payment will be made when the materials or services have been fully delivered and accepted to the full satisfaction of the University.

Y. Invoices exceeding the limits established by an award, or for materials not qualifying under its specifications are not subject to payment. Issue invoices that fully describe the product or service that you have rendered, together with our purchase order number. Do not issue statements. If you send your invoice to the wrong address, expect payment to be delayed. Discount period will begin on receipt of invoice or merchandise, whichever is later. Payment will be made by ordinary mail and date of postmark is date of payment, unless otherwise agreed to in writing. The University reserves the right to use cash payment terms and all other discounts in its evaluation of bids. It will not pay finance or other so called late charges.

IMPORTANT BID INSTRUCTIONS! Take time to carefully read all instructions and specifications. This bid inquiry has been prepared so that your quoted price(s) can be entered by a Data Entry Clerk and, subsequently, analyzed by a computer. By following the instructions and specifications herein, vendors will minimize the possibility of error in bid submission A) Do not submit a proposal that requires interpretation. Each proposal should speak for itself.

B) If the bid specifications request additional information, such as samples or questionnaire responses, then be sure to return such as part of your bid. Failure to comply may result in your proposal being non-responsive and disqualified on that basis. In the event addenda are issued, vendors shall be responsible for incorporating any and all supplemental specifications, terms and conditions into their proposal. Any submittal of alternate terms and conditions on the part of the vendor will be considered a counter-proposal and any such bids may be disqualified on that basis

C) Some vendors may identify parts of their proposals as confidential, proprietary, private, or use similar terms that restrict disclosure. The University is only able to consider such request to the extent permitted by Ohio law. This policy shall take precedence over any contradictory language in the vendor’s proposal.

D) In addition to the Clifton Campus and Medical College areas, our suburban branches (UC Clermont and UC East in Batavia, UC Blue Ash in Blue Ash, and Health UC in Georgetown) may wish to participate in any resulting contract. Unless bidder indicates otherwise in their proposal, it will be assumed bids include delivery of goods and services to all University sites at the same prices, terms and conditions quoted herein.

E) The University of Cincinnati Central Purchasing Department will not accept bid responses faxed directly to our office in response to this written price inquiry. Such bids will be considered non-responsive and disqualified on that basis

Multiple Copies Please respond to this Price Inquiry by submitting one properly executed original and 1 identical copy. Please keep all pages in the same order as they were originally sent. Conformity With Bid Documents Bidders are encouraged to accept all University of Cincinnati terms and conditions identified in this bid. The submittal of exceptions or deviations by a bidder in their proposal may be cause for disqualification. Bidders should complete the following “Yes” / “No” conformity question. Does your proposal comply with all terms and conditions identified in this bid?

Yes, our proposal complies with all terms and conditions identified in this bid.

No, our proposal does not comply with all terms and conditions identified in this bid. Important! If “No” is checked, then the bidder should attach to their proposal a separate sheet titled “Exceptions” that is formatted as follows:

• Bidder is expected to identify SPECIFIC exceptions to University of Cincinnati terms and conditions. Bidder’s printed terms and conditions are NOT considered specific exceptions and may not be accepted.

• Any University of Cincinnati term and condition to which the bidder is taking specific exception should be clearly identified by page number and paragraph title.

• Following each specific exception entry, bidder should clearly state proposed, alternate language for consideration. (Please note that the University of Cincinnati lacks authority to, and will not, agree to any proposal for the vendor’s unconditional indemnification, for compulsory arbitration, for jurisdiction or venue in any courts other than a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Ohio, or for governing law other than the law of Ohio and the United States of America.)


5

Restricted Disclosure Requests Some vendors may identify parts of their proposals as confidential, proprietary, private, or use similar terms that are intended to restrict disclosure. The University of Cincinnati is only able to consider such requests to the extent permitted by Ohio law. Bidders should complete the following “Yes” / “No” restricted disclosure question. Does your proposal contain any language that is intended to restrict disclosure?

Yes, our proposal does contain such language. Important! If “Yes” is checked, then bidder should attach to their proposal a separate sheet titled “Restricted Disclosure” that identifies the SPECIFIC narrative in their proposal (e.g., page number, paragraph title, and sentence) that they request to remain confidential. Entire proposals that are identified by the bidder as confidential or proprietary, or similar preprinted designations, are NOT considered specific requests and may not be accepted. (Please note that the University of Cincinnati lacks authority to, and will not, agree to restrict disclosure of any pricing information.)

No, our proposal does not contain language that is intended to restrict disclosure.

Ohio Bidder Was this product mined or produced in the United States?

Yes_____ No_____ Is your firm an Ohio bidder or from a border state?

Yes_____ No_____ An “Ohio Bidder” describes one who offers Ohio products (defined to mean products which are mined, excavated, produced, manufactured, raised, or grown in the state by a person where the input of Ohio products, labor, skill, or other services constitutes no less than 25 percent of the manufactured cost) or a bidder who demonstrates significant Ohio economic presence (defined to mean business organizations that: 1) Have sales offices, divisions, sales outlets of manufacturing facilities in Ohio or facilities demonstrates a significant capital investment in Ohio; 2) Pay required taxes to the State of Ohio; and 3) are registered and licensed to do business in the State of Ohio with the office of secretary of state).


6

Verbal Contact Not Permitted Absolutely no verbal contact by vendor is permissible while this bid and subsequent evaluation process are pending. Questions (if any) must be submitted in writing and must be received in the University of Cincinnati Department of Purchasing at least five (5) University working days prior to the closing date of this bid and must reference price inquiry # 201274-S. Submit such questions (if any) to: Department of Purchasing Attn: Sam Patton, [email protected]

Personal & Confidential University of Cincinnati P O Box 210089 Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0089 Questions worthy of response will be answered via addendum. U.C. reserves the right not to respond to questions received after the cutoff date just indicated above. Caution: The University of Cincinnati’s Central Purchasing Department will not accept completed bid responses that are

faxed directly to our office. Post-Bid Interviews And Negotiations The University of Cincinnati (U.C.) reserves the right to negotiate with one or more of the respondents in order to arrive at a final selection. The University may select bidder semi-finalists for detailed evaluation and post-bid interviews. Vendor semi-finalists may be asked to conduct on-site product demonstrations. The objective of any post-bid interview and/or product demonstration will be to permit key departmental personnel an opportunity to seek clarification and to validate the vendor proposals. This process may also include the negotiation of finer points of the bid. Excluded from any negotiation shall be, 1) major items that were not previously specified or quoted in the RFP, 2) increases in the prices for items quoted in the vendor’s bid, 3) new charges for items that were quoted at no charge. If negotiations are pursued, then they will occur only with the vendor under prime consideration. Should it be determined that a particular vendor’s proposal is not in the best interests of the University, then negotiations would occur with the next best bidder, and so on. All vendors are cautioned to be carefully detailed, specific and accurate in their written bid responses as each bid should speak for itself. Vendors should complete their quote with the understanding that post-bid interviews or negotiations are an option that may, or may not, be exercised by the University. Written bids that are vague or difficult to interpret due to incompleteness may be considered non-responsive and ineligible for award consideration. Lastly, the University may request a respondent to furnish such supplemental information as is sufficient to assure the respondent’s resources, system functionality, business organization and financial resources are adequate to successfully execute this project.


7

Requests for electronic version of this RFP document The University of Cincinnati will provide, upon proper request submittal, a complete, non-addressed electronic version of this RFP document as a Word file attachment via email transmission for bidders to use to prepare their proposal. Vendors should not alter the RFP in any way from its original format if they use this electronic version. The procedure to request the e-versions of this RFP is as follows: 1. The vendor will submit an email request to Sam Patton at the following email address – [email protected].

Please refrain from using this email address to send non-requested marketing solicitations. 2. Please state in the subject line or first line of description: Request for e-version of RFP #201274-S. 3. The vendor’s email address identified in their request will be the one used by Sam Patton to transmit the

Word attachment. 4. Please refrain from requesting that we send multiple e-versions to different email addresses within the same

company. We should have one contact per company only and that contact should assume responsibility for additional transmittals within that person’s organization.

Regarding the e-versions of this RFP, vendors agree to assume all associated risks including, but not necessarily limited to, electronic problems with the email transmission, problems accessing the Word file attachment, screen print problems or mistakes, reformatting of pages, and failure to properly execute and submit a complete hardcopy response via mail or hand-delivery prior to the established closing date and time. Under no circumstances will the University of Cincinnati be responsible for the successful electronic transmission (via email) of this RFP document or the proper use of any such transmission sent to vendors. IT IS UNDERSTOOD THAT ONLY COMPLETE, HARDCOPY RESPONSES SUBMITTED VIA MAIL OR HAND-DELIVERY TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI’S CENTRAL PURCHASING DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE DEADLINE DATE AND TIME WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. AS A PART OF THIS PRICE INQUIRY AN ELECTORNIC VERSION OF YOUR SUBMITTAL IS ALSO REQUIRED BEFORE THE DEADLINE DATE AND TIME WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.


8

1. Purpose of RFP The University of Cincinnati is a research-intensive state university in the State of Ohio. Composed of fourteen colleges, including three professional schools, UC has a current enrollment of 45,000 students, and greater than 250,000 living alumni. UC has been named "Among the top tier of the Best National Universities," according to U.S. News & World Report. Greater than 90% of classes at UC utilize some form of technology to enhance learning. Often referred to as hybrid classes, the majority of classes at UC fall into this category and represent the new “traditional” class. Approximately 17% of UC students (~5,300 students) are enrolled in a fully online program, and this population continues to grow rapidly. These students take all of their classes online and may only visit UC’s physical campus at graduation. Current eLearning Environment Canopy is UC’s innovative, collaborative, and student-centered eLearning ecosystem that seeks to facilitate student success by offering leading eLearning tools to students and faculty. More than just a collection of technology tools though, Canopy is about supporting students and faculty in an “anytime, anywhere” climate, from face-to-face to fully online -- particularly through the creation of partnerships that fuse pedagogy with technology to support 21st century teaching and learning. Blackboard Learn is the university’s current Learning Management System (LMS) and is the core system that powers the Canopy eLearning ecosystem. The Blackboard LMS at UC offers instructors the ability to share syllabi and course documents with students, submit grades to the Registrar, and host discussion forums. Through Blackboard, students and instructors also have easy access to integrated tools and services such as lecture capture (Echo360), video repository (Kaltura), web conferencing (WebEx), and publisher tools from McGraw-Hill, Cengage, Wiley, etc. A recent year-long strategic planning effort for eLearning identified student and faculty dissatisfaction with the University’s current LMS, Blackboard, including concerns about its ease of use and interface design. RFP Objectives

• To identify potential Learning Management System (LMS) platforms for use at UC. • To gather information about whether a proposed LMS platform contains the required

features, components, and integrations necessary for deployment at a large, research-intensive institution such as UC.

• To gather information about what hosting/SaaS options exist for a proposed LMS. • To gather information about conducting a large-scale pilot test of a proposed LMS during

spring semester 2017. • To gather information about what implementation and migration tools/services are

available should UC elect to fully implement the proposed LMS. • To gather information about the future technology roadmap for a proposed LMS platform.


9

2. Proposal Content IMPORTANT! Vendors proposals should cross-reference and provide point-by-point narrative responses to each numbered item in Section 2 “Proposal Content”. Proposals should be organized and numbered in the order presented in Section 2. Bidders should repeat each question or request as it is numbered and worded in Section 2 followed immediately by the vendor’s narrative response. Vendors should affix their Section 2 response pages to this bid packet by using a secure fastener (e.g., binder clip). Bidders should provide generous narratives on each Section 2 item so that we may assess your systems capability to perform. Proposals not organized or completed in the prescribed manner may be eliminated from consideration. Likewise, bids that are vague or difficult to interpret due to incompleteness may be considered non- responsive and ineligible for award consideration.


10

Item Number

Item Sub-Number

Description Vendor self-score

2.1 Vendor Information

2.1.1 Please identify the company that is responding to this RFP, including the full legal name of the company, location of your headquarters, mailing address, and telephone number. Please provide the same information for any parent corporation(s) as well.

2.1.2 Please identify an individual at the vendor who is authorized to represent the vendor during the RFP process, including any potential pilot.

2.1.3 Please provide a brief overview of your company and history of your organization, including the year the company was established, state of incorporation, and type of ownership; names(s) and credentials of all partner(s) and/or owner(s) of the company; and a copy of the most recent annual report.

2.1.4 Please provide detailed information about how your company partners or enters into joint ventures with other ed-tech companies.

2.2 Viability for a research-intensive university

2.2.1 Please provide your total number of customers, broken down by country, state, institution size, and market (higher-education, K-12, corporate, etc.). Please also provide the number of research-intensive universities using the proposed LMS.

2.2.2 Please provide evidence of the adoption of any product(s) and/or service(s) proposed at large, research-intensive institutions in the United States.

2.2.3 Please provide any evidence of support for large (> 100,000 student) consortiums or community college systems.

2.2.4 Please provide three (3) references from institutions similar in scope and purpose as the University of Cincinnati (i.e., large, research-intensive universities in the U.S. who also serve large online populations).

2.2.5 Please provide the most recent annual financial report, including summary information about your organization’s annual research & development and support budgets.

2.2.6 Please identify the market and what percentage of market share any proposed product(s) and/or service(s) currently have going back five (5) years.

2.3 Technical/System Requirements for LMS

2.3.1 Please provide detailed information about how the proposed LMS integrates with Oracle’s student information system, PeopleSoft, including with the SAIP integration pack.

2.3.2 Please provide detailed information about how instructors can submit grades from the proposed LMS to Oracle’s student information system, PeopleSoft, including with the Student Administration Integration Pack (SAIP).


11

2.3.3 Please provide detailed documentation about how the proposed LMS supports the IMS Global Learning Information Services (LIS) specification 2.x.

2.3.4 Please provide detailed documentation about how the proposed LMS supports the IMS Global Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) 1.x and 2.x specifications.

2.3.5 Please provide detailed documentation about how the proposed LMS supports the Security Assertion Markup Language (SAML) standard.

2.3.6 Please also provide detailed documentation about how the proposed LMS supports the Shibboleth authentication method.

2.3.7 Please provide detailed information about how the proposed LMS integrates with the Kaltura Video Platform, including but not limited to how students and faculty can upload videos, how students and faculty can use the WYSIWYG editor to record ad-hoc videos, how students and faculty can access previously added video content, etc.

2.3.8 Please provide detailed information about partnerships or joint ventures with textbook publishers, specifically how course content from the following publishers can be loaded into the LMS:

• McGraw-Hill • Pearson • Wiley • Cengage • WebAssign • VitalSource

2.3.9 Please provide detailed documentation about how the proposed LMS integrates with the following products and services, including features and functionality that are unique to the proposed LMS:

• Echo360’s Active Learning Platform • Cisco’s WebEx web conferencing service • Hobson’s Starfish • Lynda.com’s on-demand learning platform • Box.com • Dropbox.com • Cielo24

2.3.10 Please provide detailed documentation about how the proposed LMS supports and/or integrates with the


12

following proctored testing & anti-plagiarism tools and services: • Respondus test creation software • Respondus Lockdown Browser • Respondus Monitor • ProctorU • Examity • ExamSoft • SafeAssign/Turnitin

2.4 Cloud/hosting offerings

2.4.1 Please provide detailed information about options for hosting the proposed LMS in the cloud or similar

vendor-hosted options, including the underlying hosting provider, uptime guarantees, available bandwidth and storage, costs, etc. Please also provide documentation showing actual achieved uptimes for the past two (2) years.

2.4.2 Please provide detailed information about disaster recovery plans should the primary hosting site experience an interruption in service, including guaranteed time for Return to Operations (RTO), guaranteed Recovery Point Objective (RPO), how frequently the disaster recovery plan is tested, etc.

2.4.3 Please provide detailed information about where your data center(s) is located, including whether it can be guaranteed that all customer data will reside in the U.S. Please also include detailed information about any additional costs an institution would incur if it chooses this option.

2.5 Security

2.5.1 Please review UC’s standard Data Security Rider (included below) and identify any terms and/or conditions that cannot be met with the proposed solution.

2.5.2 Please provide detailed information about how the proposed LMS solution (including any cloud-based components) safeguards Personally Identifiable Information (PII), including information governed by the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act (FERPA).

2.5.3 Please provide detailed information about how the proposed LMS complies with the requirements of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

2.5.4 Please provide detailed information about how the proposed LMS solution (including any cloud-based components) complies with requirements of the the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).

2.5.5 Please provide documentation about the proposed LMS, including all subsystems and ancillary


13

components, implement permissions. 2.5.6 Please provide documentation demonstrating whether the proposed LMS has been independently certified

as being compliant with the ISO 27001:2013 standard.

2.5.7 Please provide documentation about how content stored in the proposed LMS is encrypted at rest. 2.5.8 Please provide documentation about how content stored in the proposed LMS is encrypted when in transit

(e.g., is TLS used?).

2.5.9 Please provide documentation about how backups of content from the proposed LMS are securely maintained.

2.5.10 Please provide documentation about how user activity and usage logs can be exported on a daily basis from the proposed LMS and imported into an operational/business intelligence solution such as Splunk.

2.5.11 Please provide detailed documentation about what regular security audits are performed of the proposed LMS, including any cloud based service offerings. Please indicate whether UC may request written proof of future audits at any time during the term of any potential agreement.

2.6 Accessibility

2.6.1 Please supply a current (version 1.3) and independently verified Voluntary Product Accessibility Template® (VPAT) for each proposed product and service, including subsystems or components included with and/or necessary for the proper operation of the proposed LMS, even if those components are developed by third parties, specifically Section 1194.21: Software Applications and Operating Systems, Section 1194.22: Web-based Internet Information and Applications, Section 1194.31: Functional Performance Criteria and Section 1194.41: Information, Documentation and Support.

2.6.2 Please provide detailed documentation how the proposed LMS meets the accessibility standards set forth in Sections 504 and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA) and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAA).

2.6.3 Please describe in detail to what degree (level A, AA or AAA) each proposed product and service, including subsystems or components included with and/or necessary for the proper operation of the proposed LMS meets the World Wide Web Consortium’s (W3C) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (ISO/IEC 40500:2012).

2.6.4 If the proposed LMS supports the uploading of video, please indicated how uncaptioned videos uploaded by students, faculty, and staff may be captioned. Please provide detailed documentation about any partner integrations for captioning, including costs, turnaround time, overview of the process, etc.

2.6.5 Please provide detailed information about the responsiveness of the interface design, including what functionality, if any, is lost when browsing from a mobile device. Please also include information


14

regarding progressive enhancement, specifically the semantic structure and the graceful degradation of the pages of the proposed LMS.

2.6.6 Please identify what specific screen readers are certified to work with the proposed LMS. 2.7 Mobile support

2.7.1 Please provide detailed documentation about your support for mobile devices, including supported mobile

operating systems (e.g., iOS, Android, etc.), supported mobile devices, version requirements, feature set, etc.

2.7.2 Please provide detailed documentation about what mobile apps are available or recommended for students and faculty to use, including what functionality is offered by each mobile app.

2.7.3 Please provide detailed information, including any independent testing or reports, about the accessibility of each mobile app.

2.8 User Support

2.8.1 Please provide detailed documentation about what on-demand support resources (e.g., online knowledge base articles, video tutorials, quick guides, etc.) are provided to students, faculty, and staff, including whether those support resources can be re-branded and re-purposed by UC.

2.8.2 Please provide detailed documentation about what browsers and browser features are supported. This should include what versions of each browser are supported, what plug-ins may be required to use certain functions of the proposed LMS, policies and practices when new or updated browsers or plug-ins are generally available, etc.

2.8.3 Please provide detailed documentation about what operating systems are supported. This should include policies and practices when new or updated operating systems are generally available.

2.8.4 Please provide detailed documentation about what end user support is offered (e.g., phone support, chat-based support, etc.), including costs, hours of operation, response times, average/guaranteed time to resolution, etc.

2.8.5 Please provide detailed documentation about what institutional support is offered (e.g., an institution designates several individuals who are authorized to contact the vendor for assistance), including costs, number of individuals included, hours of operation, response times, time to resolution, etc.

2.9 Course Navigation

2.9.1 Please provide documentation and screen shots showing how students and instructors navigate through a course.

2.9.2 Please provide documentation and screen shots showing the folder/module structure within a course. 2.9.3 Please provide documentation and screen shots showing the default student and instructor views within a

course.


15

2.9.4 Please provide documentation about how an instructor can see a student view of a course. 2.9.5 Please provide documentation about the standard course roles that are available in the LMS (e.g., student,

instructor, teaching assistant, graduate assistant, etc.).

2.9.6 Please provide documentation about how the course navigation functions can be aligned with the Quality Matters (QM) Rubric.

2.10 ePortfolios

2.10.1 Please provide detailed documentation about the support for ePortfolios in the proposed LMS. 2.10.2 Please indicate whether ePortfolios can be shared with just the instructor and/or other members of a

student’s class.

2.10.3 Please indicate whether ePortfolios can be shared with other members of the university community (e.g., academic advisors, honors program, etc.) who are not members of a student’s class.

2.10.4 Please indicate whether ePortfolios can be shared externally with prospective employers, without being made publicly available.

2.10.5 Please provide information about whether or not students retain access to their ePortfolios and associated artifacts after they leave the university.

2.10.6 Please indicate whether ePortfolios and any associated artifacts can be exported for deployment on another, standard web server.

2.11 Competency Based Education

2.11.1 Please provide detailed documentation about the support for Competency Based Education in the proposed LMS.

2.11.2 Please provide documentation about the support for badging and certificates in the proposed LMS. 2.11.3 Please provide documentation about how course-level learning outcomes can be added or imported into the

proposed LMS, including through batch tools.

2.11.4 Please provide documentation about how specific course activities can be tied to course-level and unit-level learning outcomes in the course.

2.11.5 Please provide documentation, including sample screen shots, of how students are able to determine their level of progress when completing competency based activities.

2.12 Core functionality

For each of the items in section 2.12 (i.e., Assignments through Analytics), please answer the following questions about the features in the proposed LMS. For each item below in this section, indicate whether the proposed LMS: 0) Does not meet this requirement 1) Meets this requirement


16

2) Exceeds this requirement Vendor self-

score 2.12.1 Assignments

2.12.1.1 Does the proposed LMS support the conditional release of course content based on meeting specific course

criteria?

2.12.1.2 Does the proposed LMS support the conditional release of course content based on specific dates and times?

2.12.1.3 Does the proposed LMS support specific due dates and times for assignments? 2.12.1.4 Does the proposed LMS support group assignments? 2.12.1.5 Does the proposed LMS support the ability to assign different grades to members of the same group. 2.12.1.6 Does the proposed LMS support rubrics for assignments? 2.12.1.7 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to grade student assignments by rendering MS Office,

Adobe PDF, and other common document formats directly in the browser?

2.12.1.8 Does the proposed LMS support peer review of fellow students? 2.12.1.9 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to provide video feedback in response to student

assignment submissions?

2.12.1.10 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to grade student submissions anonymously? 2.12.2 Gradebook

2.12.2.1 Does the proposed LMS offer gradebook functionality?

2.12.2.2 Does the proposed LMS support allow instructors to easily add or delete columns in the gradebook? 2.12.2.3 Does the proposed LMS support group assignments without adding additional columns for each group in

the gradebook?

2.12.2.4 Does the proposed LMS offer an intuitive interface for faculty? 2.12.2.5 Does the proposed LMS support the weighting of grades? 2.12.2.6 Does the proposed LMS allow instructors to easily align student activities, assignments, and grades with

course-level learning outcomes?

2.12.2.7 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to include extra credit assignments or columns in the gradebook?

2.12.2.8 Does the proposed LMS support customized views in the gradebook? For example, can an instructor create a view that only shows the students in certain groups?

2.12.2.9 Does the proposed LMS support the ability to download all grades from the gradebook into Microsoft Excel?


17

2.12.2.10 Does the proposed LMS support the ability to download all grades from the gradebook into a comma separated values (.csv) file?

2.12.2.11 Does the proposed LMS support the ability to upload grades from a Microsoft Excel file into the gradebook?

2.12.2.12 Does the proposed LMS support the ability to upload grades from a comma separated values (.csv) file into the gradebook?

2.12.2.13 Does the proposed LMS permit instructors to determine from the gradebook where in the course a particular assignment or test is deployed?

2.12.2.14 Does the proposed LMS support the alignment of rubrics to assignments, including discussion forums, wikis, journals, etc.?

2.12.2.15 Does the proposed LMS support the the ability of instructors to create calculated columns based on data from multiple columns in the gradebook (e.g., can an instructor subtotal all students’ assignment scores in a column, all test scores in another column, etc.)

2.12.2.16 Does the proposed LMS support the ability to download aggregate rubric data for an entire assignment? 2.12.3 Student Performance Tracking

2.12.3.1 Does the proposed LMS support the tracking of student performance tracking in the gradebook?

2.12.3.2 Does the proposed LMS permit instructors to determine whether individual students have completed a course survey?

2.12.3.3 Does the proposed LMS allow instructors to determine by student the number of page views, number of clicks, and total time spent in the course?

2.12.4 Attendance / Participation

2.12.4.1 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to track student participation in accordance with the requirements of Title IV of the Higher Education Act for in-person or face to face classes?

2.12.4.2 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to track student participation in accordance with the requirements of Title IV of the Higher Education Act for fully online or distance learning classes?

2.12.4.3 Does the proposed LMS allow instructors to manually track student attendance? 2.12.4.4 Does the proposed LMS provide instructors with the ability to access detailed student activity logs for

purposes of resolving academic disputes (e.g., student claims they have submitted an assignment)?

2.12.4.5 Does the proposed LMS provide system administrators or other privileged users with the ability to access detailed student activity logs for purposes of resolving academic disputes (e.g., student claims they have submitted an assignment)?

2.12.5 User Management

2.12.5.1 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to create new student accounts in the LMS?


18

2.12.5.2 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to bulk enroll existing students into a course? 2.12.5.3 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to bulk un-enroll students from a course? 2.12.5.4 Does the proposed LMS offer customizable roles within a course? For example, can a teaching assistant be

granted permission by an instructor to grade student assignments, but not the ability to upload new content to the course?

2.12.5.5 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to easily assign students to groups within a course? 2.12.5.6 Does the proposed LMS offer the ability to assign students to multiple groups? 2.12.5.7 Does the proposed LMS allow instructors to simultaneously enroll users into a course and assign a specific

role within that course?

2.12.5.8 Does the proposed LMS offer privileged users the ability to impersonate another user for the purposes of troubleshooting?

2.12.6 Calendar

2.12.6.1 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors a calendar function? 2.12.6.2 Does the proposed LMS automatically add due dates for course assignments and assessments to the

calendar?

2.12.6.3 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to easily modify due dates by updating the calendar entry for an assignment rather than modifying the assignment itself?

2.12.6.4 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to drag and drop items on the calendar? 2.12.6.5 Does the proposed LMS allow the importation of university events into the calendar? 2.12.6.6 Does the proposed LMS integrate with 25Live from CollegeNET? 2.12.6.7 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to automatically synchronize the LMS

calendar to their personal calendars in Microsoft Office 365, Microsoft Outlook, and Google’s Gmail?

2.12.6.8 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors to synchronize the LMS calendar with iOS and Android devices?

2.12.7 Communication Tools

2.12.7.1 Does the proposed LMS offer students the ability to send email messages to the instructor(s) of the course from within the course?

2.12.7.2 Does the proposed LMS offer students the ability to send email messages to other students in the course? 2.12.7.3 Does the proposed LMS offer students the ability to send email messages to groups in the course? 2.12.7.4 Does the proposed LMS offer students the ability to send email messages to technical support? 2.12.7.5 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to to send email messages to individual students in

course?

2.12.7.6 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to to send email messages to groups of students in course?


19

2.12.7.7 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to post announcements in a course that students will see when they access the course?

2.12.7.8 Does the proposed LMS offer a synchronous chat function? 2.12.7.9 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors to review and save chat logs? 2.12.7.10 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to digitally sign email messages? 2.12.7.11 Does the proposed LMS offer the ability to confirm the receipt of email messages sent by students and

instructors?

2.12.7.12 Does the proposed LMS offer the ability to confirm the opening of email messages sent by students and instructors?

2.12.7.13 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors a summary dashboard that permits them to track communications that have been shared with students?

2.12.7.14 Does the proposed LMS offer FERPA compliant options for sharing discussion forum content (e.g., print, download, etc.)?

2.12.7.15 Does the proposed LMS offer threaded discussion forums that permit students and faculty to easily create, update, and delete threads?

2.12.7.16 Does the proposed LMS offer the ability to create threaded discussion forums that are associated with just a group of students within a course?

2.12.7.17 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to collaborate using wikis? 2.12.7.18 Does the proposed LMS offer journals? If so, are journals restricted to just the journal author (student) and

the instructor?

2.12.7.19 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to provide audio and video feedback when grading assignments, discussion forums, journals, and wikis?

2.12.7.20 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to subscribe to discussion forums so that students and instructors are alerted whenever a new post or update is made?

2.12.8 Text Editor

2.12.8.1 Does the proposed LMS offer a What You See is What You Get (WYSIWYG) text editor? If the text editor is open-source or licensed from another organization (e.g., TinyMCE), please indicate the name of the underlying text editor and the organization that maintains it.

2.12.8.2 Does the text editor in the proposed LMS offer spell check functionality? 2.12.8.3 Does the text editor in the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to view the underlying

HTML?

2.12.8.4 Does the text editor in proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to preview how content will look before posting?

2.12.8.5 Does the text editor in proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to cleanly copy and paste (i.e., without formatting issues) to and from Microsoft Office documents?


20

2.12.8.6 Does the text editor in proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to import or attach multimedia files?

2.12.8.7 Does the text editor in proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to easily compose mathematical equations?

2.12.8.8 Does the text editor in proposed LMS offer integration with TeX and LaTeX for mathematical equations? 2.12.8.9 Does the text editor in proposed LMS offer the ability to integrate with MathJax for mathematical

equations?

2.12.9 Notifications

2.12.9.1 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to receive notifications via email whenever new or updated content is added to a course?

2.12.9.2 Does the proposed LMS offer instructors the ability to post announcements in a course while simultaneously sending the announcement to students via email?

2.12.9.3 Does the proposed LMS offer an institution the ability to send university announcements to all instructors via email?

2.12.9.4 Does the proposed LMS offer an institution the ability to send university announcements to all students via email?

2.12.9.5 Does the proposed LMS offer an institution the ability to send university announcements to all users via email?

2.12.9.6 Does the proposed LMS offer students and faculty the ability to customize their notification settings on a per course basis?

2.12.9.7 Does the proposed LMS offer students and faculty the ability to receive notifications on their iOS-based and Android-based tablets and mobile phones?

2.12.10 Conferencing Tools

2.12.10.1 Does the proposed LMS offer an integrated, synchronous web conferencing function that permits instructors to host sessions with all students in the course? Are there any limitations to this function? For example, are there any limits to the number of student or instructor participants?

2.12.10.2 Does the proposed LMS offer an integrated, synchronous web conferencing function that permits students to host sessions other students in the course? Are there any limitations to this function?

2.12.10.3 If the proposed LMS offers an integrated, synchronous web conferencing function, does it also offer the ability to store audio and video recordings from web conferences?

2.12.10.4 Does the proposed LMS offer a shared whiteboard? 2.12.10.5 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to test their cameras and microphones

prior to the start of a meeting?

2.12.10.6 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to share screens?


21

2.12.10.7 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to record meetings? If so, are there any limits to the number of recordings that can be made, the length of those recordings, or how long the recordings are retained?

2.12.11 File Management

2.12.11.1 Does the proposed LMS have any limits on the size of files that students and instructors upload to the LMS. If so, please provide detailed documentation about those limits.

2.12.11.2 Does the proposed LMS allow administrators to set limits on the size of individual files that that students and instructors upload?

2.12.11.3 Does the proposed LMS allow administrators to set quotas on courses? 2.12.11.4 Does the proposed LMS support the automatic compression of files that are uploaded by students and

faculty?

2.12.11.5 Does the proposed LMS support the de-duplication of files stored in the LMS as displayed to the students and instructors? (For example, when a course is copied, does an instructor see two versions of the same file with slightly different file names?)

2.12.11.6 Does the proposed LMS support the de-duplication of files stored in on the underlying file system? Please distinguish if there is a difference in functionality between an on premise installation and a cloud-based installation.

2.12.11.7 Does the proposed LMS support version control for individual files? 2.12.11.8 Does the proposed LMS offer a shared file repository for users within a course? 2.12.11.9 Does the proposed LMS offer a shared file repository across courses? 2.12.11.10 Does the proposed LMS offer a shared file repository independent of courses? 2.12.11.11 Does the proposed LMS offer a shared file repository that is accessible only to the members of a group

within a course?

2.12.11.12 Does the proposed LMS offer integration with Box.com? If so, please provide documentation about how functionality works.

2.12.11.13 Does the proposed LMS offer integration with Dropbox? If so, please provide documentation about how functionality works.

2.12.11.14 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors to upload multiple files at once? 2.12.11.15 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to add files to the LMS by dragging and

dropping from within the Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and Edge web browsers?

2.12.12 Content Management

2.12.12.1 Does the proposed LMS offer support for single/bulk actions (e.g., course copy, replace, delete, add)? 2.12.12.2 Does the proposed LMS offer support for automatic date updates when copying or modifying courses? 2.12.12.3 Does the proposed LMS offer support for copying within a course and to another course?


22

2.12.12.4 Does the proposed LMS offer support for WebDav? 2.12.12.5 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to search for content within a course? 2.12.12.6 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to search for content across multiple

courses?

2.12.12.7 Does the proposed LMS offer students and instructors the ability to search for content in a shared file repository?

2.12.12.8 Does the proposed LMS offer support for SCORM content? If so, please list all versions and subversions of SCORM that are supported.

2.12.12.9 Does the proposed LMS offer users the ability to recover inadvertently deleted files? 2.12.12.10 Does the proposed LMS offer system administrators the ability to recover inadvertently deleted files?

2.12.13 Course Management

2.12.13.1 Does the proposed LMS offer the ability to accommodate large enrollment classes? Are there any limits on the number of enrollments that can be added to a single course?

2.12.13.2 Please provide detailed documentation about the support, if any, for instructors who teach multiple sections of the same course. For example, can those courses be merged? Can the students from each section automatically be added to groups within the merged course?

2.12.14 Portal

2.12.14.1 Please indicate whether the proposed LMS also has an associated user portal. 2.12.14.2 Please indicate whether it is possible to post system announcements that all users will see when they access

the proposed LMS.

2.12.14.3 Please indicate whether it is possible to create small modules (i.e., portal modules) that contain HTML content that users will see when they access the proposed LMS.

2.12.14.4 If the proposed LMS supports portal modules, please indicate whether it is possible to target those modules just to specific groups of users and system roles.

2.12.14.5 If the proposed LMS supports portal modules, please indicate whether it is possible to delegate the rights to update the content in those portal modules to non-privileged users (i.e., students and faculty).

2.12.15 Administrative functions

2.12.15.1 Does the proposed LMS offer system administrators the ability to restrict what tools are available in a course by default?

2.12.15.2 Does the proposed LMS offer system administrators the ability to create and populate system roles based on a user’s role in the institution (e.g., student, faculty, staff, graduate student, undergraduate student, etc.)?

2.12.15.3 Does the proposed LMS offer system administrators the ability to create hierarchical containers of courses


23

that have unique settings or restrictions? (For example, can an institution create a container that contains all of the courses in particular college, and then establish unique settings that apply to all courses in that container?)

2.12.15.4 Does the proposed LMS offer system administrators the ability to delegate management rights for a hierarchical container of courses to another individual?

2.12.16 Analytics

2.12.16.1 Does the proposed LMS offer support for the IMS Caliper standards? 2.12.16.2 Does the proposed LMS offer descriptive analytics at the overall or institution level? 2.12.16.3 Does the proposed LMS offer descriptive analytics at the course level? 2.12.16.4 Does the proposed LMS offer the ability to export structured usage data for importing into other analytics

or visualization systems (e.g., Tableau)?

2.12.16.5 Does the proposed LMS offer the ability to export unstructured usage data for importing into big data analysis solutions (e.g., Hadoop)?

2.12.16.6 Does the proposed LMS offer predictive analytics reports for instructors? 2.12.16.7 Does the proposed LMS offer predictive analytics reports for advisors? 2.12.16.8 If the proposed LMS offers predictive analytics for students and/or instructors, does it also allow

institutions to customize the messaging that students see?

2.13 Technology Roadmap

2.13.1 Please provide a detailed technology roadmap for the next two years for the proposed LMS, including any subsystems or ancillary components.

2.14 Implementation & Services

2.14.1 Please provide detailed information about what implementation services are recommended to fully and successfully implement the proposed LMS at a large, research-intensive university.

2.14.2 Please provide detailed information about the recommended process for importing existing courses and organizations from Blackboard Learn 9.1 into the proposed LMS. If migration services are offered, please include detailed costs and a sample Statement of Work (SOW).

2.14.3 Please provide detailed information, including costs, about what training is provided to the following communities. Please also indicate whether the training is self-paced, instructor-led, on premise, remote, etc.

Faculty Students System Administrators Trainers (i.e., train-the-trainer)


24

Support teams (e.g., Help Desk staff)

2.14.4 Please provide detailed documentation about what training is available for students, faculty, and support staff who are participating in a semester-long pilot test of the proposed LMS. Please also indicate whether the training is self-paced, instructor-led, on premise, remote, etc.

2.15 Cost

2.15.1 Please provide detailed cost information about each and every product, component, and/or service proposed or referenced in the the response to this RFP.

2.15.2 Please provide detailed cost information for conducting a pilot test of the proposed LMS during Spring Semester 2017 (i.e., Dec 1, 2016 – June 1, 2017) that includes up to 100 courses and 3,000 – 5,000 students. The pilot must also support data integration with U.C.’s student information system (Oracle’s PeopleSoft) such that student and instructor enrollments are updated on a daily basis.


University of Cincinnati Special Terms

25

1. Method of Evaluation 1.1 Perform analysis of vendor RFP responses and determine overall score 1.2 Highest scoring vendors who have met the mandatory requirements will be invited to

participate in scripted vendor demos 1.3 Usability testing by students and faculty in sandbox environment 1.4 Decision matrix in conjunction with the scoring of scripted demos, RFP responses, and

usability testing to determine which, if any, LMS pilot 1.5 Recommendation and approval from governance to proceed with a pilot (December 1,

2016 – June 1, 2017) 1.6 Complete Pilot – up to 100 instructors and 3,000-5,000 students 1.7 Evaluation of pilot based on, but not limited to, data collected from participants,

instructional designers and system administrators 1.8 Formal Recommendation to Governance, including integrated decision making

2. Tentative Schedule

Phase 1 – Market Scan/RFP • July 22 RFP issued • August 22 RFP evaluated • September Scripted demos for faculty and students:

Monday, 9/12 USquare Room 359 8:30am – 12:30pm Tuesday, 9/13 USquare Room 359 8:00am – 12:00pm Friday, 9/16 USquare Room 352 8:30am – 12:30pm

• September Sandbox testing • October 5 Recommendation to eLearning Committee • October 6 – 20 Recommendation to IT Council Advisory Committee • October 6 – 20 Brief other governance committees

Phase 2 – Pilot during Spring Semester 2017

• December 1 Available to faculty and instructional designers • January 9 Spring Semester begins • April 27 Spring Semester ends • April - May Conduct survey assessing pilot • June Compile survey results and conduct analysis • September Present findings and recommendation to IT Governance • October Submit recommendation through Integrated Decision Making


Special Terms (Continued)

26

Phase 3 – Transition

• January 2018 Begin implementation • February 2018 Train instructional designers • March 2018 Train faculty • May 2018 Summer launch • August 2018 Full university on new platform • October 2018 Sunset current LMS



27

3. Proposal Submission

Bidders should propose services that meet or exceed the specifications in this RFP. All bidders who provide a bid proposal in response to this RFP are responsible for all costs associated with preparing that proposal, answering all questions, providing U.C. with requested information, and making a bidder presentation to U.C. (if such a presentation is requested).

Bidders should sign the cover page (original signature) and properly execute, in its entirety, this original RFP document.

IMPORTANT! Vendors proposals should cross-reference and provide point-by-point narrative responses to each numbered item in Section 2 “Proposal Content”. Proposals should be organized and numbered in the order presented in Section 2. Bidders should repeat each question or request as it is numbered and worded in Section 2 followed immediately by the vendor’s narrative response. Vendors should affix their Section 2 response pages to this bid packet by using a secure fastener (e.g., binder clip). Bidders should provide generous narratives on each Section 2 item so that we may assess your systems capability to perform. Proposals not organized or completed in the prescribed manner may be eliminated from consideration. Likewise, bids that are vague or difficult to interpret due to incompleteness may be considered non-responsive and ineligible for award consideration.

Supplemental technical information, product literature and other supporting materials that further explain or demonstrate the proposed system capabilities may also be included with your proposal package. Bidders are also requested to provide details on the features, functions, or other considerations exclusive of the specified requirements the proposed software affords the customer that may provide a distinct value to the University. In the event that such features, functions, or other considerations do provide a distinct benefit, U.C. reserves the right to give the bidder additional consideration.



28

4. Section 4. Proposal Submission 4.1 All vendors who provide a response to this RFP are responsible for all costs they incur associated

with preparing proposals, responding to all relevant questions, providing U.C. with requested information, and making a presentation to U.C. (if such a presentation is requested).

4.2 Respondents should sign the cover page (original signature), properly execute this original RFP, and return the entire document (all pages).

4.3 IMPORTANT! READ AND FOLLOW CAREFULLY! Vendors’ proposals should cross-reference and provide point-by-point narrative responses to each numbered item in Section 2 “Proposal Content”.

4.3.1 Proposals should be organized and numbered in the order presented in Section 2. Bidders should repeat each question or request as it is numbered and worded in Section 2 followed immediately by the vendor’s narrative response.

4.3.2 Bidders should provide generous narrative in responding to each Section 2 entry; however, clarity, conciseness, and responsiveness will be valued over sheer volume.

4.3.3 Vendors should affix their Section 2 response pages to this bid packet by using a secure fastener (e.g., binder clip) or by insertion in a three-ring binder.

4.3.4 Proposals not organized or completed in the prescribed manner may be eliminated from consideration. Likewise, bids that are vague or difficult to interpret due to incompleteness may be considered non-responsive and ineligible for award consideration.

4.3.5 Attachments are permissible if they supplement the point-by-point narrative responses and if they are clearly cross-referenced. But, do not use attachments in lieu of providing the narrative responses. In reviewing proposals, University personnel may not search through general literature.

4.4 Supplemental technical information, product literature and other supporting materials that further explain or demonstrate the proposed services may be included with your proposal. Respondents are requested to also provide details on services or other considerations exclusive of the information requested in Section 2 that may provide a distinct value to the University. In the event that such services or other considerations do provide a distinct benefit, the University reserves the right to give the bidder additional consideration.

4.5 Respondent’s RFP final bid submittals should consist of:

4.5.1 One (1) original submittal, clearly marked and labeled, that includes all documents as described in sections 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4

4.5.2 One (1) duplicate submittal that is an exact electronic copies of 4.5.1 4.5.3 An electronic version of your submittal emailed to [email protected]. Proposals to be

considered must be received at that address by the deadline of 2:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, August 19, 2016.

4.6 Packaging of proposals

4.6.1 Submittals should be packed (packages or cartons) and must be delivered to the following address prior to the deadline:



29

Purchasing Department Room 320 University Hall University of Cincinnati 51 Goodman Dr. Cincinnati, OH 45221-0089

4.6.2 Identify the package or carton containing the original submittal (described in 4.5.1) by using permanent black marker and writing “Original Submittal Enclosed” on all sides of the package or carton.

4.6.3 Use the Submission and Packaging Checklist (below) as a means of double-checking

your submittals prior to delivery.

4.7 Submission and Packaging Checklist

4.7.1 Bidders may use this checklist to double-check compliance with Section 4 instructions. This list is not intended to be comprehensive and bidders are responsible for following all instructions in this RFP regarding the submittal of their proposals.

Sign the cover page (original signature), properly execute this original RFP, and

return the entire document (all pages). Submittals should consist of documents described in sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. Clearly label your original submittal. Example: If your submittals will be

inserted in binders, then the cover of the particular binder containing the original should be clearly labeled “Original”.

If a Vendor Registration Application form was included with your RFP, then it

should be fully completed and inserted with your original submittal. Clearly identify the package or carton containing your original submittal.

Example: Write “Original Submittal Enclosed” on all sides of that particular package or carton.

Proposals to be considered must be received at the below address by the

deadline of 2:00 PM Eastern Daylight Time, August 19, 2016. Purchasing Department

Room 320, Attn: Sam Patton 201274-S University Hall University of Cincinnati 51 Goodman Dr. Cincinnati, OH 45221-0089

University of Cincinnati 51 Goodman Drive Cincinnati, OH 45221-0089


University of Cincinnati Instructions for Completing the Price Pages

30

Price pages follow this sheet. Carefully read the information below and properly complete and return all price pages along with the rest of this price inquiry and other requested attachments. • Quote prices in the spaces provided. Failure to complete the form properly, which is formatted to facilitate the

comparison of bids, may result in the disqualification of your proposal. • The computerized system will only accept a maximum of three digits as cents (e.g., 0.036) and any exceeding three

will automatically be disregarded. • Please avoid stray marks or highlighting any part of your price page entry since such marks could be misread by

our computer system. • The quoted unit price should be based on the unit of measure indicated by the University in the UNIT column. • Unless otherwise stated in the bid by the Buyer, alternatives will be considered that meet or exceed the listed

specifications. It is the bidder’s responsibility to adequately identify alternatives. Bidders quoting alternate bids should include in their proposals technical specification sheets from the manufacturer and all other detail necessary to provide sufficient information for the Buyer’s consideration.


University of Cincinnati Purchase Order

Price Inquiry Price Page

Instructions Refer to page titled Instructions for Completing the Price Pages for general instructions regarding the completion of this page

Item Qty. Unit Description Unit Price

31

001 Total Variable Pricing - Total Cost Material Group: 0166-00

________.__

1

LEARNING MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TASK FORCE

Recommendation to Conduct

Exploratory Pilot of

Instructure Canvas

February 2017

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 3

History and Methodology .......................................................................................................................................... 4

Academic Technology Planning with Blackboard ........................................................................................ 4

Letter to governance ................................................................................................................................... 4

Market scan ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Request for Proposals (RFP) + Decision Matrix ............................................................................................ 4

Consultations with other institutions ........................................................................................................... 5

Attendance at Bb World, InstructureCon, and D2L Fusion ........................................................................... 5

Usability Testing .......................................................................................................................................... 5

Exploratory Pilot ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

Summer ‘17 ................................................................................................................................................. 6

Fall ‘17 ......................................................................................................................................................... 6

Goals of the pilot ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Training........................................................................................................................................................ 6

Course Migration ......................................................................................................................................... 7

Support ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

Integrations ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Proposed Budget ....................................................................................................................................................... 9

Assessment of the Pilot ........................................................................................................................................... 10

Faculty feedback .................................................................................................................................... 10

Student feedback.................................................................................................................................... 10

Next Steps ............................................................................................................................................................... 10

Governance & Leadership ....................................................................................................................... 10

Negotiations with Instructure ................................................................................................................. 10

Communication Plan .............................................................................................................................. 11

Post-pilot Recommendation ................................................................................................................... 11

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................... 11

Appendix A – Timeline ............................................................................................................................................. 12

Appendix B – Supporting Data ................................................................................................................................. 13

Appendix C – Community Engagement Dates ......................................................................................................... 29

Appendix D – References ........................................................................................................................................ 30

Appendix E – Task Force Members.......................................................................................................................... 31

3

Executive Summary

Formed in spring 2016 in response to an open letter to the eLearning Committee, the Learning Management System Task Force (LMS TF) was charged with examining whether the university’s Learning Management System (LMS), Blackboard (Bb) Learn, is continuing to meet the university’s needs. Any change to an institution’s LMS will be disruptive, and should not be approached casually. Such a change requires migrating years of course content, providing professional development for faculty and instructional designers, and creating new support documentation and processes. At UC, this would be a major undertaking given that Bb Learn serves as the foundation for the Canopy eLearning ecosystem. Greater than 90% of students and faculty use the tools in Canopy each semester, many on a daily basis. Further, any potential transition would be occurring despite significant change fatigue at UC due to semester conversion and the launch of a new student information system (SIS). While the LMS TF is cognizant of the challenges associated with potentially switching LMS platforms, it is also aware of an impending change to Bb Learn that will impact UC. Bb has provided UC and other institutions with early access to their next generation LMS, Bb Ultra. Bb Ultra will feature a new interface that in many respects departs from the existing design, necessitating both professional development for faculty and a change in how UC builds courses. In short, the LMS TF recognizes that change is coming to UC regardless of whether UC remains with the Bb LMS. Considering all of these factors, the LMS Task Force identified three distinct phases in its charge:

Phase 1) Conduct a Market Scan to identify what alternatives to Blackboard Learn are available in the marketplace and are viable for use at UC. – COMPLETED Phase 2) Based on the results of the market scan, conduct a pilot of a potential alternative LMS to determine whether the platform meets UC’s needs, and if any gaps exist. Phase 3) Based on the data gathered during the pilot, make a recommendation to governance that UC either remain with Blackboard, or that the university transition to another LMS.

After conducting an extensive market scan and evaluation of the leading LMS platforms on the market, LMS Task Force recommends that UC conduct a small-scale pilot of Instructure Canvas during Summer and Fall semesters of 2017. This small-scale pilot will start with 10 carefully chosen courses taught by early adopter instructors. The purpose of the small-scale pilot is to conduct a deeper analysis of Instructure Canvas both to determine its general suitability for UC, but more specifically to prepare for a larger pilot in Spring 2018 that consists of 100 courses and 3,000 – 5,000 students. The cost of even a small-scale pilot is not insignificant, and cannot be funded out of the eLearning operating budget. It is estimated that the cost for a six-month pilot, including integrations, will exceed $100,000. However, that investment is small relative to the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) for UC’s LMS and will enable UC to make an informed decision about whether to remain with Blackboard. In March 2017, the co-chairs of the LMS Task Force will be presenting this recommendation to senior leadership and governance for endorsement, including the eLearning Committee, IT Council, Faculty Senate, Council of Deans, and provostal leadership.

4

History and Methodology Academic Technology Planning with Blackboard In January 2016, fifty-three members of the eLearning community attended a three-day Academic Technology Planning (ATP) engagement with representatives from Blackboard. This engagement was in support of strategic planning for eLearning, and was designed to provide UC with a strategic roadmap for where Bb’s LMS was headed over the next several years. While the team from Blackboard was professional and candid, the community expressed significant concern about the strategic direction and lack of progress being made in modernizing Bb’s LMS. Specifically, Bb Ultra was already two years overdue, and development was not focusing on the perceived weaknesses in Bb Learn, such as mobile support. Additionally, the UC community was aware of a leadership change at Bb, the company’s high debt load, and a failed attempt to sell the company. Letter to governance In response to the concerns that arose from the ATP engagement with Bb, several members of the eLearning community drafted a letter to the eLearning Committee recommending that a formal task force be charged with exploring whether there was a more suitable LMS for UC. Both the eLearning Committee and IT Council Advisory Committee agreed that this was a prudent course of action and gave their approval to form a representative task force. Market scan During the market scan phase, the LMS TF consulted resources from Gartner Research Group, including a summary of all commercial and free/open-source LMS platforms available, as well as resources from EDUCAUSE. The initial scan of the market place identified primarily three commercial LMSs (Blackboard Learn/Ultra, Instructure Canvas, & D2L) and two open-source LMSs (Moodle and Sakai). The LMS TF briefly considered whether open-source solutions were suitable for UC, but came to the conclusion that UC did not have the required development team to maintain those solutions. Most other research-intensive universities have come to the same conclusion. In an effort to obtain more detailed information about each of the LMS platforms, the LMS TF contacted the three commercial LMSs companies and invited them to campus to conduct an informal demo of their product for the LMS TF. Request for Proposals (RFP) + Decision Matrix Following the informal demos, the LMS TF drafted a comprehensive RFP consisting of 209 criteria, 35 of which were deemed required for UC. Interested companies were encouraged to submit formal responses that included information about what features their LMS offered, its support for Accessibility, whether it conformed to UC’s information security requirements, costs, etc. UC received five responses from four different vendors to its RFP. Blackboard, at the urging of the LMS TF, submitted two separate proposals, one for Blackboard Learn and one for Blackboard Ultra. To aid in the decision-making process, a decision matrix was also created. This matrix outlined how the LMS TF would be making a recommendation. Each category in the Decision Matrix was mapped either to specific sections of the RFP, or to discrete activities of the LMS TF. For example, Core Functionality in the Decision Matrix mapped to the section in the RFP of the same name, while Usability Testing mapped to

5

the efforts of the LMS TF to obtain input directly from students and faculty based on their experiences trying out one of the two alternatives to Blackboard.

LMS Pilot – Decision Matrix Category Weight Core Functionality 20% Suitability for UC 20% Scripted demos 5% Faculty & Student Usability Testing 20% Technical Evaluation 10% Security Evaluation 10% Cost 15%

Table 1 - LMS Pilot - Decision Matrix

Consultations with other institutions Concurrent with the efforts to identify what LMS platforms were available in the marketplace, members of the LMS TF also began contacting peer institutions and institutions that had recently transitioned from one LMS to another. This included schools such as The Ohio State University, University of Kentucky, Miami University, etc. Generally, the advice from the institutions that UC consulted was:

• Any transition was a 2 – 3 year process, • A pilot was strongly recommended, • Communication with leadership, faculty, and students was critical to the success of those

efforts. Attendance at Bb World, InstructureCon, and D2L Fusion Similar to Blackboard, both Instructure and D2L host annual conferences each summer where many of their customers gather to exchange ideas, discover upcoming enhancements, and meet with the leadership of the company. In July 2016, all three of the LMS TF co-chairs attended Bb’s conference, Bb World. Following Bb World, one co-chair attended Instructure’s conference, InstructureCon, and one co-chair attended D2L’s conference, Fusion. Attending these conferences provided a good opportunity to meet with the leadership of both companies, as well as many of their customers. UC was not alone in this approach, and identified other institutions that were also considering switching from Blackboard to either Instructure Canvas or D2L. Usability Testing Although the LMS TF received a great deal of information in response to its RFP, it was insufficient information to be able to formulate a recommendation because it did not include the student or faculty perspective. Accordingly, the LMS TF set out to conduct broad Usability Testing, where students and faculty were asked to spend 15 minutes using one of the two highest rated LMSs and provide feedback. A total of 653 students and faculty participated in Usability Testing over the course of six months. The results of this evaluation identified a clear preference for Instructure Canvas. See Appendix B – Supporting Data for more detail about the results of Usability Testing.

6

Exploratory Pilot Summer ‘17 The summer exploratory program will be conducted as an extended usability test. The target test population is 10 faculty members who have a strong nexus to the LMS Roadmap Task Force and who have courses scheduled for either half or full summer terms (May 08, 2017 - August 05, 2017). Ideally, the courses included in the exploratory program will be a 50-50 mix of online and face-to-face or hybrid courses so that any issues in either modality can be evaluated at the end of the summer term. Recruitment of faculty members to participate in the summer exploratory program should be completed by March 1, 2017 to maximize preparation time. Fall ‘17 The fall exploratory program will include 20 faculty participants, including the 10 participants from the summer exploratory program (should they choose to continue). This will allow us to evaluate ease of use across terms, particularly in terms of differences in faculty workload between summer and fall terms. Additional recommendations for the fall exploratory program will be provided based on the outcome of the summer exploratory program. Goals of the pilot The goals of the exploratory pilot will be to gather preliminary data via a survey to determine the:

1. Overall quality of the experience (educational effectiveness, ease of use, enterprise integrations, user-support) for students and faculty and whether it warrants moving to a larger pilot study.

2. Level of training and support that will be needed for a larger pilot study. 3. Level of enthusiasm that exists for a larger pilot study of Canvas. 4. Range of Canvas tools that faculty will likely use. 5. Evolution of assessment tools that will be needed for later, larger pilot studies, in which we’ll

more broadly assess whether Canvas meets the needs of all teaching disciplines (humanities, sciences, math).

6. Effectiveness of the Accessibility features within Canvas for UC, and to identify what gaps, if any, exist.

Training Training will need to take place for three populations: administrators, instructional designers, and faculty members. Instructure has indicated they will provide training to instructors and instructional designers to ensure the success of the exploratory program, though specific information regarding this has not yet been provided. With participating faculty members, we need to ensure that there is adequate training for basic usage of the LMS but also enough information omitted to facilitate discovery. This process of discovery will allow the evaluation of system intuitiveness at the end of the exploratory pilot. For the summer and fall pilot, the training will focus on the correlation of Canvas to Bb so faculty will be able to quickly structure their courses pedagogically appropriately for Canvas. A basic orientation for students will be created by the Center for Excellence in eLearning, consisting of a series of instructional videos and associated knowledge base articles that illustrate how to perform common tasks in Canvas, such as submitting assignments, posting to discussion boards, communicating with instructors, etc.

7

Course Migration Courses that have been created in Blackboard for the 1st half summer term or full summer term should be migrated to Instructure Canvas by April 1 to allow instructional designers and instructors time to remediate issues that may arise from the migration process. If an instructor is willing, they should be given the opportunity to build out their course from scratch within the system. A basic university template will be provided as a suggested structure and recommended resources for use in their Canvas course. Attendance verification for financial aid eligibility must also be carried over. Support With an exploratory program of 10 faculty members, there are unit-, college-, and university-level resources that can be utilized to provide full support, including instructional designers and technical support. Scheduled one-on-one consultation will be available to provide support to instructors and instructional designers. Included in the communication plan will be planned check-ins, conducted by support resources, to make sure that the instructors involved are not suffering in silence. Tier 1 support for instructors and students during the exploratory program will have to be negotiated with Canvas. Integrations Several integrations are necessary to ensure the summer exploratory program is successful. Apart from back-end identity management systems, the Canopy integrations that should be in place prior to the beginning of the summer term are Catalyst, Shibboleth (i.e., UC’s Central Login Service), Kaltura, Echo360 and Turnitin. With regard to Catalyst, it is the recommendation of Enterprise Application Support (EAS) that the course enrollments in Canvas for the summer term be configured via a flat file from the Data Cache. Student enrollments will need to be added to Canvas at least two weeks prior to the start of summer semester, so no later than April 24, 2017. During the summer term, the EAS team can evaluate whether a direct integration from Canvas into Catalyst via the LIS standard is possible and meets the institutions business requirements for data integration.

Service Description

Catalyst is the university’s student information system and the source for account, course, and enrollment information for the university’s Learning Management System. During the exploratory pilot, existing data feeds for Blackboard will be extended to load data into the Instructure Canvas instance.

The University of Cincinnati uses a secure Central Login Service for students, faculty and staff to access essential online services and tools. This includes registering for classes, paying tuition and fees, checking financial aid, accessing courses through Blackboard, accessing your UC email account, online library resources and more -- all using the same Username and Password.

8

Kaltura is the University’s enterprise media creation tool and streaming video repository. Faculty, students and staff members have the ability to create media content for courses, assignments or tutorials with Kaltura’s stand-alone software based tool and upload the content for use in Blackboard or one of the nineteen college or departmental websites (KMS) for sharing content publicly. As of December 2016, there are over 30Tb of video stored in Kaltura. In fall semester 2016 alone, students and faculty watched more than 85,000 minutes of video on Kaltura. (https://kb.uc.edu/kbarticles/kaltura-landing.aspx)

Echo360 ALP is an integrated system, which encompasses lecture capture and active learning tools. Echo360 ALP allows for active engagement of students before, during and after class by utilizing features that allow students to interact with the content on any device in ways that were previously disjointed and self-driven. The university has over seventy-five classrooms that can automatically capture lectures. In the last year over 215,000 hours of Echo360 ALP videos were viewed. (https://kb.uc.edu/kbarticles/echo360-landing.aspx)

Turnitin is an industry leading anti-plagiarism tool that integrates with most Learning Management Systems. Because SafeAssign is supported only by Blackboard, it will be necessary for the university to identify an alternative anti-plagiarism tool.

Table 2 - Recommended integrations for Summer and Fall small-scale pilot of Instructure Canvas

https://kb.uc.edu/kbarticles/kaltura-landing.aspx

https://kb.uc.edu/kbarticles/kaltura-landing.aspx

https://kb.uc.edu/kbarticles/echo360-landing.aspx

https://kb.uc.edu/kbarticles/echo360-landing.aspx

9

Proposed Budget Currently, the work of the LMS TF is being funded out of eLearning’s operating budget. To date, the TF has incurred about $15,000 in expenses. This includes monies for public demos, usability testing, attendance at meetings and conferences. Should the recommendation to pilot test Instructure Canvas be accepted, the approximate cost for the six-month pilot would be approximately $113,700. This excludes the cost of increasing the pilot in spring 2018, and also excludes the cost of any transition.

Figure 1 - Proposed budget for small-scale pilot

10

Assessment of the Pilot Faculty feedback The LMS TF will conduct two focus groups with instructors who participate in the exploratory pilot. The first focus group will be held at the end of Summer Semester ’17, while the second focus group will be held at the end of Fall Semester ’17. During these sessions, we will primarily use the exploratory pilot goals to drive the conversation and elicit feedback, although we will also capture data from instructors about their general experience using Instructure Canvas. In addition, participating faculty will be surveyed at the end of each semester about their experiences with Canvas. The data gathered from these surveys and focus groups will inform the recommendation whether to expand the pilot in Spring Semester ’18. Student feedback To elicit student feedback, the LMS TF will deploy two surveys each semester. The first survey will collect early-term feedback from students, similar to the formative surveys that CET&L sponsors each semester. The second survey will be deployed at the end of the term to collect summative feedback. As with the surveys of participating faculty, the questions on the summative feedback surveys will be based on the goals of the exploratory program. Students will also be asked to participate in focus groups designed to capture feedback about their experiences. These focus groups will be conducted primarily face-to-face, but there will also be a WebEx option for those who are unable to attend or are enrolled in online courses.

Next Steps

Governance & Leadership The co-chairs of the LMS Task force will present the recommendation of the Task Force to the following governance committees and leadership for their endorsement of a small-scale pilot.

• eLearning Committee – March 1, 2017 • Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and Vice Provost for Undergraduate Affairs - TBD • Council of Deans – March 15, 2017 • Faculty Senate – March 9, 2017 • IT Council – March 22, 2017

Negotiations with Instructure Assuming that the appropriate governance bodies and UC leadership endorse the small-scale pilot of Instructure Canvas, UCIT will work with Purchasing to send a formal letter to the companies that submitted bids in response to UC’s RFP. After notifying each vendor, UCIT will also work with the relevant offices (e.g., Purchasing, Information Security, etc.) to negotiate a contract with Instructure for the pilot. Instructure indicated in their bid that they would be willing to offer a free pilot of Instructure Canvas, but UC still needs to have a formal contract in place that specifies what services will be provided, how UC’s data will be protected, etc.

11

Communication Plan Concurrent with the negotiations for a formal contract, the LMS TF will work closely with communication teams from UCIT and participating colleges to develop a comprehensive communications strategy. In consultations with other schools, this was identified as one of the critical components to any LMS evaluation and/or transition. Not only is it necessary to communicate about what is happening during the pilot, it is just as important dispel any fear, uncertainty, or doubt that may exist. Accordingly, regular updates will be provided throughout the pilot to the appropriate governance bodies, pilot participants, and the general UC community. Post-pilot Recommendation At the conclusion of the small-scale pilot of Instructure Canvas, the LMS TF will make one of the following recommendations:

• That UC conduct a large-scale pilot during Spring Semester 2018 to include approximately 100 courses and 3,000 – 5,000 students. Assuming that the small-scale pilot validates the results of Usability Testing, this is most likely outcome. Should the LMS TF find, however, that Canvas does not meet UC’s needs, including for Accessibility, then it will recommend another option.

• That UC discontinue all pilot testing of alternative LMS platforms and wait for Bb Ultra. For the LMS TF to recommend this option, there would have to be significant advances in the development of Bb Ultra. Further, it will almost certainly require a fairly significant undertaking to move UC to Bb Ultra, at least as it’s currently envisioned.

• That UC discontinue testing Canvas and potentially conduct a small-scale pilot of D2L. This is a rather unlikely outcome based on the results of Usability Testing conducted so far, but is nonetheless an option available to UC given the parameters of the formal RFP that was issued in Aug 2016.

Conclusion

Over the last year, the LMS TF has conducted a thorough evaluation of the leading LMS platforms available in the marketplace. The TF reviewed over 1,500 pages of material from bidders who responded a comprehensive RFP. The TF collected data from over 650 members of the community who participated in Usability Testing. Four vendors were invited to conduct half-day demos for the TF. The TF consulted with several institutions that have either recently switched LMS platforms or are in the process of switching LMS platforms. And the TF co-chairs attended the annual conferences for the top three commercial LMS platforms. The robustness and inclusiveness of the evaluation process thus far has been commensurate with the potential impact that switching LMS platforms would have for UC. While the timing is less than ideal for UC due to change fatigue from the recent SIS implementation and the need to prepare for the upcoming Higher Learning Commission (HLC) site visit, the LMS TF recommends that UC commence a small-scale pilot of Instructure Canvas this summer. The purpose of the small-scale pilot is to prepare UC for a much larger-scale pilot in Spring 2018. If UC’s experiences with a Canvas pilot mirror the experiences of other Ohio institutions – and the LMS TF believes this will be the case – then UC will benefit from the deeper examination of how good a fit Canvas might be for faculty and students.

12

Appendix A – Timeline

1. March 2016 LMS Task Force formed 2. March 2017 Decision to Pilot Canvas 3. Summer 2017 Small Scale Pilot (10) 4. Fall 2017 Continue Small Scale Pilot (10+) 5. Spring 2018 Large Scale Pilot - based on Small Scale Pilot (100) 6. April 2018 GO/NO GO DECISION 7. Summer 2018 Opt in Phase I 8. Fall 2018 HLC Visit; Opt in Phase II 9. Spring 2019 Full Implementation – Potentially the last term with Blackboard

LMS Task Force - Timeline

20

16

20

17

20

18

20

19

Mar 2016

LMS TFformed

Jun 2017

Small-scaleExploratory Pilot

Jan 2019

Full scale implementationLast term with Bb

Fall 2018

Opt in Phase II

HLC Site Visit

Mar 2017

Decision topilot Canvas

Aug 2017

Small-scaleExploratory Pilot cont’d

May 2016

LMS TFconducts market scan

Jan 2018

Potential large-scale pilot, basedon data from small-scale pilot

Apr 2018

Go/No Go Decision

May 2018

Opt in Phase I

Table 3 - LMS Task Force Timeline

13

Appendix B – Supporting Data Preliminary RFP Scores The LMS TF evaluated proposals from interested vendors in multiple stages according to the Method of Evaluation section included in the published RFP. In the first stage, each vendor proposal was rated for how well it met the 35 criteria deemed required by UC. Only the top two scoring vendors, Instructure and D2L, were invited to campus to conduct four-hour public demos. Those demos were captioned and made available to the UC community on the TF web site. See here: http://www.uc.edu/provost/initiatives/elearning/strategic-initiatives/lms-task-force/demos.html

Table 4 - RFP Scores by platform for Required Functionality

http://www.uc.edu/provost/initiatives/elearning/strategic-initiatives/lms-task-force/demos.html

14

Usability Testing During Usability Testing, evaluators (i.e., UC students and faculty) were asked perform several basic tasks in an alternative LMS, based on their primary role. For example, instructors were asked to add an announcement, add a new module, create a discussion board prompt, etc. Students were asked to view announcements, post on the discussion board, check grades, etc. These tasks were designed to closely match tasks that faculty and students perform every day in Blackboard. Following Usability Testing, evaluators were asked to complete a short survey about their experiences. This survey collected both qualitative and quantitative data. Below are some of the key quantitative measure. This data was later added to the Decision Matrix that was used in determining whether to recommend conducting a pilot, and if so, what platform to pilot test.

Table 5 - Usability Testing - Primary role of evaluator

15

Table 6 - Usability Testing - Evaluators by college

16

Table 7 - Usability Testing - Evaluators' years of Bb experience

17

Table 8 - Usability Testing - Evaluators' proficiency with Bb

18

Table 9 - Usability Testing - Satisfaction with Bb

19

Table 10 - Usability Testing - Evaluators' willingness to pilot test an alternative LMS

20

Analysis of Usability Testing Data Usability testing was conducted between September 23, 2016 and February 14, 2017. Both Instructure Canvas and D2L Brightspace were used during the testing process. The usability testing process included a series of tasks that simulated a user environment for the LMS. Faculty, students, instructional designers, and Information Technology staff were invited to test one or both systems. In some cases, a user would only test one of the LMS being tested, however in many cases a user would test both LMS. Participation was voluntary. Upon completion of the usability testing, the user was asked to complete a short survey of their experiences. The survey was completed online. Users were asked to complete the survey based on their experiences testing one of the two LMS. If a user tested both LMS, they were asked to complete the survey twice. At the time of analysis (February 15, 2017), 644 entries were logged in the survey. Participants were asked three primary questions regarding their experience using the LMS. These are listed below.

DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Question Text Measure Min Max Mean Std Deviation

N

LMS Overall Score

Overall, the potential alternative Learning Management System was easy and intuitive to use.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree

1.00 5.00 3.63 1.082 636

LMS Difficulties (reverse coded)

Did you experience any difficulties when testing the new LMS?

1 = Significant Difficulties; 3 = No Difficulties

1.00 3.00 2.26 0.625 639

LMS Pilot Interest

I would be interested in participating in a semester-long pilot test of this potential alternative Learning Management System.

1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 = Strongly Agree

1.00 5.00 3.21 1.274 625

Table 11 - Statistical analysis of Usability Testing data

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the mean LMS scores for Canvas and D2L. There was a statistically significant difference in mean scores for LMS Overall Score between Canvas (M = 3.90) and D2L (M = 3.34, p < .0001). There was a statistically significant difference in mean scores for LMS Difficulties between Canvas (M = 2.38) and D2L (M = 2.13, p < .0001). There was a statistically significant difference in mean scores for LMS Pilot Interest between Canvas (M = 3.34) and D2L (M = 3.07, p < .0001). In summary, participants significantly felt that Canvas was easier and more intuitive to use. They also experienced significantly fewer difficulties when using Canvas than they did when using D2L (item is reverse coded, therefore higher scores would indicate fewer difficulties). Finally, participants were asked if they would be interested in piloting a potential new LMS and users of Canvas indicated a more significant interest than those who tested D2L.

21

Additionally, data were compared on LMS scores between a participant’s role (faculty, student, etc.), participant’s college, and participant’s experience levels with Blackboard. In most cases, comparisons were not statistically significant, but in the cases where there was significance, users preferred Canvas over D2L.

Table 12 - LMS Comparison

22

Table 13 - LMS Comparison by Primary Role

23

Table 14 - LMS Comparison by College (part 1)

24


25


26

Table 17 - LMS Preference by Bb Usage, Expertise, & Satisfaction

27

Completed Decision Matrix Prior to publishing the formal RFP, the LMS TF created a Decision Matrix that would be used to inform the Task Force’s recommendation about whether to conduct a pilot test of an alternative LMS, and if so, what LMS to evaluate further. This Decision Matrix listed seven major categories that were then weighted. Each of the categories mapped to specific sections of the RFP or other activities of the LMS TF. Because the raw scores varied so widely (e.g., Scripted Demos had max score of 5, while Core Functionality had a max score of 1,625), the scores were first scaled to a percentage. Then the relative weights were applied. Finally, the scores were tabulated. A perfect score for either Instructure Canvas or D2L would have been a 1.0.

Figure 2 - Completed Pilot Recommendation Decision Matrix

28

Tableau Dashboards The eLearning Analytics team built several visualizations in Tableau based on the data collected during Usability Testing. Because these visualizations are fully interactive, it’s recommended that the UC community view them in a compatible web browser rather than as static images. However, one example is provided below that illustrates evaluators’ years of Bb experience, level of Bb proficiency, etc. For more dashboards see this URL: https://dataanalytics.uc.edu/t/UCIT-eLearning/views/LMSUsabilityAssessment/LMSUsabilityAssessment

Figure 3 - Tableau Dashboard illustrating experience, proficiency, etc. of evaluators during Usability Testing

https://dataanalytics.uc.edu/t/UCIT-eLearning/views/LMSUsabilityAssessment/LMSUsabilityAssessment

29

Appendix C – Community Engagement Dates

• Feb 22, 2017 – College of Arts & Sciences – Usability Testing (McMicken 116)

• Feb 14, 2017 – College of Arts & Sciences – Usability Testing (Rieveschl 616C)

• Feb 13, 2017 – College of Arts & Sciences – Usability Testing (Old Chem 727)

• Dec 16, 2016 – College of Education, Criminal Justice, & Human Services – Briefed the CECH

Administrative Council

• Dec 15, 2016 – Briefed the Associate Deans (480 Langsam)

• Dec 7, 2016 – College of Engineering and Applied Science Faculty Meeting (ERC 427)

• Dec 6, 2016 – College of Arts & Sciences – Briefed Department Heads & Executive Leadership

• Dec 1, 2016 – College of Engineering and Applied Science – Usability Testing (Baldwin 537)

• Nov 30, 2016 – College Conservatory of Music – Faculty Meeting (CCM Baur Room)

• Nov 29, 2016 – CECH – Usability Testing (320 Teachers College in the CECH Library)

• Nov 10, 2016 – Lindner College of Business – Usability Testing (Lindner Hall room 209)

• Nov 9, 2016 – College of Allied Health Sciences – Usability Testing (103 French East)

• Nov 9, 2016 – ProPEL – Usability Testing (703 Steger Hall)

• Nov 8, 2016 – College of Law – Usability Testing (Law Library 314)

• Nov 3, 2016 – D2L Demo (TUC 400C)

• Nov 2, 2016 – Open Usability Testing (third floor of TUC)

• Nov 1, 2016 – College Conservatory of Music – Briefed the CCM Technology Committee

• Nov 1, 2016 – Open Usability Testing (third floor of TUC)

• Oct 31, 2016 – Open Usability Testing (third floor of TUC)

• Oct 13, 2016 – Briefed the full Faculty Senate

• Oct 5, 2016 – Instructure Canvas Demo (Nippert Stadium)

• Sep 30, 2016 – Open Usability Testing (Langsam 475)

• Sep 28, 2016 – UC Clermont Usability Testing (McDonough 210)

• Sep 28, 2016 – Open Usability Testing (Langsam 475)

• Sep 28, 2016 – Briefed IT Council

• Sep 27, 2016 – Open Usability Testing (University Hall 420b)

• Sep 26, 2016 – Open Usability Testing (Nippert Stadium – South Lounge)

• Sep 23, 2016 – UC Blue Ash Usability Testing (Muntz 117)

• Aug 18, 2016 – Briefed the Associate Deans (480 Langsam)

30

Appendix D – References

• Morgan, G., Calhoun, K. J. (2015). Market Guide for Higher Education Learning Management Systems, 2015. Gartner, Inc. Retrieved from: https://www.gartner.com/document/3138417?ref=ddrec

• Morgan, G., Calhoun, K. J. (2016). Market Guide for Higher Education Learning Management

Systems. Gartner, Inc. Retrieved from: https://www.gartner.com/document/3446722?ref=solrAll&refval=180747834&qid=1717476865e90bbd143087e9a2ae5bc6

• Morgan, G. (2015). How to Establish a Learning Ecosystem with LMS Platforms. Gartner, Inc.

Retrieved from: https://www.gartner.com/document/3088117?ref=solrAll&refval=180748064&qid=a75440ffc37794773ae07dc37392184e

• ELI 7 things should know about NGDLE. (2015). EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. Retrieved from:

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7127.pdf

• Sanga, M. W. (2016). An Analysis of Technological Issues Emanating from Faculty Transition to a New Learning Management System. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Volume 17(1), 11-21.

• Hill, P. (2016). “State of Higher Ed LMS Market for US and Canada: Spring 2016.” Blog post. e-Literate. 19 Apr 2016. Retrieved from: http://mfeldstein.com/state-higher-ed-lms-market-spring-2016/

https://www.gartner.com/document/3138417?ref=ddrec

https://www.gartner.com/document/3446722?ref=solrAll&refval=180747834&qid=1717476865e90bbd143087e9a2ae5bc6

https://www.gartner.com/document/3446722?ref=solrAll&refval=180747834&qid=1717476865e90bbd143087e9a2ae5bc6

https://www.gartner.com/document/3088117?ref=solrAll&refval=180748064&qid=a75440ffc37794773ae07dc37392184e

https://www.gartner.com/document/3088117?ref=solrAll&refval=180748064&qid=a75440ffc37794773ae07dc37392184e

http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eli7127.pdf

http://mfeldstein.com/state-higher-ed-lms-market-spring-2016/

http://mfeldstein.com/state-higher-ed-lms-market-spring-2016/

31

Appendix E – Task Force Members

Name Title College/Department Email

Greg Lloyd (co-chair)

Team Lead, eLearning Applications

UCIT - eLearning [email protected]

Paul Foster (co-chair)

Director, eLearning Technology

UCIT - Center for Excellence in eLearning

[email protected]

Todd Foley (co-chair)

Assistant Professor Division of Professional Practice and Experiential Learning

[email protected]

Chris Edwards Assistant Vice President


Dave Rathbun Instructional Technologist


[email protected]

Mike Mitchum Team Lead, eLearning Technology


[email protected]

Don Hodges Director IT College of Allied Health Sciences

[email protected]

Kent Meloy Director, Creative Team


[email protected]

Chris Harding Computer Systems Administrator


Marie Knecht eLearning Engagement Coordinator

UCIT - Public Information Office

[email protected]

32

Emanuel Lewis IT Manager UCIT - Client Services [email protected]

Robin Storch Computer Systems Administrator


Pat Reid Director, Instructional Design


[email protected]

Jon Adams Associate Director, IT UCIT - Enterprise Shared Services

[email protected]

Cindy Lusby Information Security Analyst

UCIT - Office of Information Security

[email protected]

Tyler Jones Information Security Analyst

UCIT - Office of Information Security

[email protected]

Bryan Smith Director Center for the Enhancement of Teaching & Learning

[email protected]

Emily Myers Instructional Designer College of Nursing [email protected]

Kuyler McComas Instructional Designer UCIT - Center for Excellence in eLearning

[email protected]

Nancy Rogers Professor College of Arts & Sciences [email protected]

Angela Robbins Senior Instructional Designer

Lindner College of Business [email protected]

Elicia Flom Senior Instructional Designer

Clermont College [email protected]

33

Jenni Jacobs Instructional Designer College of Education Criminal Justice & Human Services

[email protected]

Julie Breen Senior Instructional Designer

College of Education Criminal Justice & Human Services

[email protected]

Josh Heinrich Team Lead, Instructional Design


[email protected]

Megan Wuebker Software Application Developer

Enrollment Management - Advising & Academic Services

[email protected]

Jamie Byrne (project manager)

IT Manager UCIT - Project Management Office

[email protected]

Christina Harris

UCIT - Project Management Office

[email protected]

Vinit Kumbharkar

Undergraduate Student Government (SGA)

[email protected]

Bhargav Vemuri

Undergraduate, University Honors Program

[email protected]

Bob Freeman Librarian & Coordinator of eLearning

UC Libraries - College of Education Criminal Justice & Human Services

[email protected]

Anita Ingram Assistant Vice President

Risk Management [email protected]

Joe Luckey Sr. Associate Athletic Director

Athletics - Student Services [email protected]

34

Amir Salehpour Associate Professor College of Engineering [email protected]

Rose Smith Professor College of Allied Health Sciences

[email protected]

Gideon Labiner Associate Professor College of Allied Health Sciences

[email protected]

Michelle Conda Division Head College-Conservatory of Music

[email protected]

Carolyn Goodman

Professor Clermont College [email protected]

Pamela Rankey Associate Professor UC Blue Ash [email protected]

Melanie Kroger-Jarvis

Assistant Professor College of Nursing [email protected]

Matt Rota Faculty member / Director IT

College of Nursing [email protected]

Matt Schmidt Assistant Professor College of Education Criminal Justice & Human Services

[email protected]

Grace Epstein Associate Professor College of Arts & Sciences [email protected]

Kathryn Rentz Professor College of Arts & Sciences [email protected]

Melody Clark Director Distance Learning & Continuing Education

[email protected]

35

Sarah Schroeder Field Service Assistant Professor

College of Education Criminal Justice & Human Services

[email protected]

Chris Cooper Assistant Professor Division of Professional Practice and Experiential Learning

[email protected]

Victoria Wangia-Anderson

Associate Professor College of Allied Health Sciences

[email protected]

Bryan Mackenzie Associate Professor College of Medicine [email protected]

Carolyn Stoll Senior Instructional Designer

College of Allied Health Sciences

[email protected]

Emily Baute Public Information Officer

UCIT – Central Administration

[email protected]

Jill Gibboney Marketing & Promotions Coordinator


[email protected]

Jackie Mulay Marketing & Promotions


[email protected]

Tina Meagher Senior Video Strategist UCIT – Center for Excellence in eLearning

[email protected]

Sam Coppoletti Associate Professor Clermont College [email protected]

BettyAnne Gottlieb

Assistant Professor College-Conservatory of Music

[email protected]

Course Retention Policy

Background Blackboard, UC’s Learning Management System (LMS), presently contains courses that date back to 2001. Since the system is storing so much historical data, it is becoming more difficult to maintain the high performance that our students, faculty, and staff have become accustomed to when working within the LMS. The future performance of the system can be preserved by removing old courses from Blackboard. This will allow the LMS database to use less storage, decrease its index sizes, and use shared content space—functionally, this means that the operating system will perform more efficiently and be able to find and load files at a faster rate. Policy UC’s IT department, IT@UC, will be responsible for maintaining the present academic year’s courses plus the three prior academic years within the LMS. This results in the system containing four academic years’ worth of data from official university courses. This policy does not impact courses or organizations that were created outside the UC registration system, Catalyst. During each spring semester, IT@UC technicians will notify faculty that the most distant year of courses (the oldest) on the LMS are going to be removed by a certain deadline. Unless notified to the contrary by faculty, IT@UC technicians will disable those oldest courses once the deadline has passed. Faculty will have the ability to request that their courses be left intact on the system by emailing a one-year extension request by the deadline to the IT@UC service desk with the specific course IDs listed. This request will preserve the courses until such time as faculty give permission for the courses’ removal or until the next deadline, whichever is earlier. Faculty will need to apply for any and all subsequent extensions. A unit head may request the extension on behalf of a faculty member. Colleges or units that are required to keep records for longer than four years may ask for an exemption to the policy in order to extend the course retention schedule to the number of years required. This exemption may remain active for as long as the requirements are in effect. Until courses are archived in the summer, faculty can request access to disabled courses by requesting that IT@UC technicians re-enable the courses. That feature is possible until the course is archived. During each summer semester, IT@UC technicians will archive each course prior to removal from the system. Archiving these courses will permit faculty at a later date to have access to them if necessary. Once archived, the courses can safely be removed from the system.

Summary Courses older than four years in Blackboard will be removed from the system during summer semester every academic year. Upon receiving notification during spring term, the primary instructor of record, or a unit head on a faculty member’s behalf, may file a one-year extension request by contacting IT@UC as directed. Units required to retain courses for longer than four years may file an exemption to extend the number of years retained. Until the courses are archived, disabled courses can be re-enabled if needed. Once archived, courses can be accessed if necessary. FAQ Q. Will my sandbox course, organizations, or any other course that is not for credit be subject to this policy? A. No. Courses that were created outside of the student information system, i.e., Catalyst, will be left as they are in Blackboard. These course will continue to be maintained in Blackboard as they are today. Q. Will I need to send in an extension request every year or does my request last for more than one year? A. You will need to send in your request every year as these requests are only valid for one year. Q. How do I export or archive my course content before my course is removed from Blackboard? A. You can use the following link to the KB that details how to export/archive course content: https://kb.uc.edu/KBArticles/Blackboard-CourseExportArchive.aspx Q. Where can I securely store my archive or export package? A. You can store these packages in UC Box at uc.box.com. If you use your University Box account you can store an unlimited amount of courses due to the agreement the institution has with Box. Q. How do I setup and use my UC Box account? A. You can use the following link to a KB article that details how to configure your Box account in step 5: https://kb.uc.edu/KBArticles/UCBox-FAQs.aspx Q. Where should I store my course content in UC Box? A. You should store course exports & archives in the “Restricted Data” section of Box. This folder is meant to contain any restricted data that you might have and should not be shared with others. If you need assistance with using Box at UC you can following the following URL to the UC Box guide: https://kb.uc.edu/KBArticles/ucbox-userguide.aspx

https://kb.uc.edu/KBArticles/Blackboard-CourseExportArchive.aspx

https://kb.uc.edu/KBArticles/UCBox-FAQs.aspx

https://kb.uc.edu/KBArticles/ucbox-userguide.aspx

Q. Will I be able to upload my course archive or export content into the LMS’s that UC is considering as a replacement to UC? A. Both systems that UC is evaluating can import content from Blackboard at the present time. However, as time goes on and both products continue to evolve, this functionality could be taken away. Q. How would I restore data that I have archived or exported? A. This data can be restored by following the steps below in your destination course:

1. Select “Import Package / View Logs” under the Packages and Utilities section within the control panel. 2. Select import package. 3. Select the file you would like to import. 4. Select the type of data you would like to import from the package. 5. Select Submit.

Q. If I'm still concerned that I won't be able to retrieve some of my courses in the future, what should I do? A: IT@UC will continue to add new Knowledge Base articles and videos to assist not only with archiving and importing courses, but other ways to save course content from Bb courses. This will include working with other units to provide open labs and workshops as faculty needs are identified.

ELEARNING COMMITTEE ISSUE/ACTION FORM

AGENDA ITEM: ONLINE LEARNER READINESS PILOT PROJECT INITIATOR: MELODY CLARK/OLR PILOT TEAM Check Here if Action Item ____x__ Check Here if Discussion Item _______ Date of Meeting: ____2/1/17______ Estimated Time Needed @ Meeting ____15 minutes

I. ISSUE/QUESTION/PROBLEM:

Online learning requires different skills and learner attributes compared to a face-to-face setting and there are a number of ways to impact online learner success. The Online Learner Readiness (OLR) project focused on one area, student readiness. It was initiated to provide a standard framework at the university level, for early assessment of students’ online learning readiness. The intent of the OLR project is not to replace content or interventions at the online program and college level but, rather, to be another enterprise-level tool in UC’s Canopy of resources.

II. BACKGROUND DATA:

Overall, UC’s 100% online/distance learning students’ time to degree, course completion and GPAs are comparable to non-DLs. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that some populations of online learners (i.e., first-time online learners; learners that lack technical competencies to navigate the online learning environment; learners that do not participate in an online orientation prior to the start of the program; etc.), are not well prepared for course activities in a technology rich environment and experience frustration/s that detracts from focusing on academics. In April 2016, UC’s online/distance learning program coordinators/administrators were surveyed regarding current practice and perceived need/usefulness of an enterprise-wide tool to assess online learner readiness. The survey yielded a 60% response rate from seven colleges: Allied Health Sciences; Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services; Engineering and Applied Sciences; Lindner College of Business, Nursing; UC Blue Ash; and UC Clermont. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of respondents indicated that there is a need for an enterprise-wide tool and related remedial resources.

During Fall semester 2016, a small-scale pilot of an online learning readiness assessment tool (Smarter Measure™) was implemented to a group of learners enrolled in CECH/Early Childhood Education and UC Clermont 100% online programs prior to the start of classes. Included were online self-help resources provided by the SM assessment tool along with select Blackboard resources that corresponded to SM measurement scales. During the pilot, feedback was obtained from students and faculty/staff on experiences and processes (communications, assessment tool, measurement scales, self-help resources, etc.) in order to help guide future action/s and workflow of a full-scale program. Through this process several features of an online readiness assessment tool were identified as critical for success, and pointed to best practice recommendations for selecting and implementing a tool at the enterprise and academic unit levels. The online learning readiness assessment tool proved to be useful and worthwhile for students and advisors participating in this small pilot project. Attached is a full report including recommendations and suggested next steps.

III. ACTION OPTIONS AVAILABLE:

Option A.

The eLearning IT Governance Committee endorses the eLearning/project team moving forward with plan/next steps to determine and implement an online learner readiness assessment tool to be part of UC’s Canopy of resources. This includes the following next steps (see attached):

• Present pilot and next step recommendations to Associate Deans (February/March) • Initiate RFP process (February/March) • Vendor presentations (March/April) • Vendor selection (April/May) • Develop work plan and timeline, including: communication plan, information and training

sessions, etc. (April/May) • Work with college units, as appropriate, to deploy tool and coordinate implementation, as

early as Fall 2017.

Option B.

eLearning IT Governance Committee identifies changes and/or action items to address/include before endorsement to proceed with plan/next steps as presented.

Option C.

eLearning IT Governance Committee does not endorse.

IV. RECOMMENDED OPTION WITH RATIONALE AND IMPLICATIONS:

Recommend Option A. As UC’s enrollment in fully online programs continues to grow at a rate of ~11% annually, we have an excellent foundation and good reasons to provide an enterprise-wide solution to further encourage learner success in the online/distance learning environment.

V. DISPOSITION (WHO DOES WHAT, WHEN) INCLUDING TIME FRAME:

UCit eLearning will assign project lead and work will progress in collaboration with appropriate groups. See attached report for next steps and suggested timeline. (General timeline is also noted above, under III, A.)

VI. MOTION:

2ND BY (MEMBER MAY BE IDENTIFIED AT THE MEETING): _____________________________________ (Submit to Jane Haniefy, [email protected] by 5 p.m. the Wednesday before the meeting.)

1

Online Learner Readiness PILOT PROJECT

February 9, 2017

2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Potential Impact: ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Pilot Project Implementation .................................................................................................................... 6

Pilot Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 6

Pilot Participants ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Pilot Objectives ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Pilot Resources/Vendor ............................................................................................................................ 7

Information Gathering .................................................................................................................................. 7

Survey Results ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Student Survey .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Administrator & Advisor/Instructor Comments ..................................................................................... 10

CECH ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

UC Clermont ............................................................................................................................................ 11

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 12

University Level Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 13

Unit Level Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 13

Next Steps ................................................................................................................................................... 14

Pilot Project Committee Members ............................................................................................................. 15

Appendix A .................................................................................................................................................. 16

3

Executive Summary

Online learning requires different skills and learner attributes compared to a face-to-face setting and there are a number of ways to impact online learner success. The Online Learner Readiness (OLR) project focused on one area, student readiness. It was initiated to create a standard framework at the university level, for early assessment of students’ online learning readiness. The intent of the OLR project is not to replace content or interventions at the online program and college level but, rather, to be another enterprise-level tool in UC’s Canopy of resources. In April 2016, UC’s online/distance learning program coordinators/administrators were surveyed regarding current practice and perceived need/usefulness of an enterprise-wide tool to assess online learner readiness. The survey yielded a 60% response rate from seven colleges: Allied Health Sciences; Education, Criminal Justice and Human Services; Engineering and Applied Sciences; Lindner College of Business, Nursing; UC Blue Ash; and UC Clermont. Seventy-eight percent (78%) of respondents indicated that there is a need for an enterprise-wide tool and related remedial resources. During Fall semester 2016, a small-scale pilot of an online learning readiness assessment tool (Smarter Measure™) was implemented to a group of newly admitted students enrolled in CECH/Early Childhood Education and UC Clermont/Health Information Technology 100% online programs prior to the start of classes. Included were online self-help resources provided by the SM assessment tool along with select Blackboard resources that corresponded to SM measurement scales. During the pilot, feedback was obtained from students and faculty/staff on experiences and processes (e.g. communications, assessment tool, measurement scales, self-help resources, etc.) in order to help guide future action/s and workflow of a full-scale program. Through this process several features of an online readiness assessment tool were identified as critical for success, as well as best practice recommendations for selecting and implementing a tool at the enterprise and academic unit levels. The online learning readiness assessment tool proved to be useful and worthwhile for students and advisors participating in this small pilot project. Next steps include presentation of this final report and recommendations to the eLearning IT Governance Committee for endorsement to move forward and determine and acquire an enterprise-level online learning readiness assessment tool to be a part of UC’s Canopy of resources. A work plan will be developed to include communication and training to inform and educate the university community about the pilot, availability and use of the tool, for potential roll-out in Fall 2017.

4

Introduction

More than 40% of American students who begin at four-year colleges don’t earn a degree in six years. When community colleges are added to the mix, the numbers are worse, with only about half of students actually earning a degree (Chronicle, 2015). Not surprising, federal and state higher education policymakers are focusing more heavily on retention and graduation rates and implementing accountability measures. Recent state legislation is now driving financial resources to the university based on student completion of degrees and courses via Compete College Ohio. Therefore, moving forward, UC aims to be more proactive in collaborating to support students to complete a quality education.

The university recognizes that online/distance learners are a student population with similar needs for academic support as campus-based students. Because most do not spend time on-campus, special attention must be given to effectively meet their needs in a distance format. As of Fall 2015, this population consisted of 5,594 students enrolled from all 50 states (and many foreign countries) in UC’s 70+ 100% online degrees/specializations and certificates.

As online and hybrid courses have increased over the past decade, it has been noted that completion and persistence rates for these formats are often low when compared side-by-side to a traditional face-to-face section. Studies have reported multiple factors that may impact student success/persistence in an online course: self-efficacy, individual learner attributes, pre-entry variables (i.e., prior higher education experience, etc.), demographics, course design, non-academic and practical issues/pressures, and many others (Dupin-Bryan, 2004; Hart, 2012; Mandernach B, Donnelli E., Dailey-Hebert A., 2006).

Overall, UC’s 100% online/distance learning students’ time to degree, course completion and GPAs are comparable to non-DLs. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that some populations of UC online learners (i.e., first-time online learners; learners that lack technical competencies to navigate the online learning environment; learners that do not participate in an online orientation prior to the start of program; etc.), are not well prepared for course activities in a technology rich environment and experience frustration/s that detracts from focusing on academics. For example, academic advising staff in one college report that many of their new undergraduates express concerns around how to navigate Blackboard and the discussion board process. In addition, it has been reported that underprepared students place a heavy demand on institutional resources (faculty, staff, help desk support).

5

As UC’s enrollment in fully online programs continues to grow at a rate of ~11% annually, we have an excellent foundation and good reasons to provide an enterprise-wide solution to further encourage learner success in the online/distance learning environment.

In April 2016, UC’s online/distance learning program coordinators/administrators were surveyed regarding current practice, perceived need/usefulness of an enterprise-wide tool. The survey yielded 60% response rate, from seven colleges: CAHS, CEAS, CECH, Clermont, Blue Ash, Business, and Nursing.

• 78% of respondents indicated there is a need for an enterprise-wide tool and related remedial resources

• Less than 20% felt there would be challenges to implementing an enterprise-wide tool

Potential Impact: 1. Further promotes online student success and course completion 2. Increases student satisfaction with UC’s online programs 3. Builds synergy/alignment with existing needs and initiatives focused on student success

a. UC’s Complete College Plan that includes strategies to systematize academic support networks and interventions that align with best practices,

b. Integrate with University/College/program level advising and orientation programs, c. Third Century/reimagining the student experience

4. Serves as a touch point to engage students with the university prior to admission/start of program (delivery in advance of student start fills time void in which we may lose students)

5. Increases efficiencies and reduces (hidden) institutional costs attributed to demand that underprepared students place on institutional resources (faculty; staff; help desk support, etc.)

6. Further supports UC’s commitment to student success; DL/online programs meet the same standards as face-to-face on-campus programs (i.e. responding to accrediting and/or external agencies, etc.)

6

Pilot Project Implementation Online learning requires different skills and learner attributes compared to a face-to-face setting and there are a number of ways to impact online learner success. The Online Learner Readiness (OLR) project focused on one area, student readiness. It was initiated to create a standard framework at the university level, for early assessment of students’ online learning readiness. Based upon the assessment scores, self-help, remedial skill-development resources were provided to assist students with addressing areas of weakness prior to the start of the online learning class. The intent of the OLR project is not to replace content or interventions at the online program and college level but, rather, to be another enterprise-level tool in UC’s Canopy of resources. Pilot Purpose The intent of this pilot was to implement, on a small-scale, an online learning readiness assessment tool (Smarter Measure™) along with associated self-paced, skill-development resources to a group of learners enrolled in 100% online programs prior to the start of classes, Fall semester 2016. Self-help resources provided during the fall semester pilot were a combination of online resources presently available via the Smarter Measure™ (SM) assessment tool as well as existing UC resources that correspond to the SM measurement scales. In particular, Blackboard. Pilot Participants Based on feedback, follow-up conversations, and timeline, the following colleges/programs participated in the pilot: CECH/Early Childhood Education (ECE) and UC Clermont/Health Information Services Technology (HIT). Target Students: New admits/online learners Fall 2016 (identified by college/program at the point of admission). College/program administrators solicited students to participate in the pilot, and informed them, up front, regarding pilot purpose, and what we were seeking from them via their participation. Self-selected college/program administrators, faculty and advisors were also invited to participate in the implementation and evaluation of the pilot. During the pilot, feedback was obtained on processes/workflow as well as student experience (communications, assessment tool, measurement scales, and self-help resources provided) in order to help guide future action/s and workflow of a full-scale program. This included how best to configure and deploy the tool, communications, and associated resources (i.e., what was worth effort/measuring and help identify UC-branded (remedial) skill-development resources that may be developed, etc.) Pilot Objectives

• Gain information to help inform configuration, implementation and deployment of the OLR tool (workflow) enterprise-wide

• Value-add to users (i.e., students, administrators, faculty?)

7

• Determine if OLR self-assessment tool adds value to the student new to online learning (e.g. whether the student felt better prepared for online learning, etc.)

• Usefulness of online resources provided by SM (gaps/needs) • Inform development of UC-specific (branded) self-help, skill-development, resources • Performance and ease of use (student, administrators) • Identify barriers (i.e., implementation, buy-in, student success with using tool, etc.) • What worked/did not work in the implementation, process, communications; impact on

student; integration with program/college practice • Inform vendor contract negotiation (enterprise contact/pricing, etc.) and project funding

Pilot Resources/Vendor Based on a high-level market scan of OLR products as well as existing UC investment in, knowledge of, and relationship with vendor the past five years, Smarter Measure™ (SM) http://www.smartermeasure.com/ was the vendor selected for this pilot. The vendor provided an OLR self-assessment tool along with a bank of online self-help (remedial) resources that were included in the student’s assessment results (made available automatically to students when completing the assessment). In addition, existing UC resources were included. (A sample of a SM student report is available at http://www.smartermeasure.com/about/ )

Information Gathering The intent of the pilot was to gain insight into the workflow required to implement an online learner readiness assessment tool at the enterprise-level (how-to), including feedback from students regarding value/benefit, barrier/s, etc. of using an assessment tool and the associated resources. In order to collect information regarding user experiences, formative and summative surveys were conducted to obtain feedback and opinions of the students who took the SM online readiness assessment and used the online self-help (remedial) resources. Listed below is a sampling of questions the project aimed to address:

• Communications – How/when communicated to students (usefulness, timing, etc.) • Were there any barriers to taking the self-assessment? • What was most useful? • Did students use the resources? • Were resources provided useful? Gaps? Needs? • Does the student come away with a positive feeling from the experience? • Survey the student who did not use the online self-help resources to find out why not?

Students were requested to participate in a feedback survey during the Fall 2016 semester. As an incentive for participation in the survey, respondents were provided a $10 Amazon gift card. Additionally, those faculty who teach the online learner courses were contacted to collect their input on the pilot along with the student advisors.

http://www.smartermeasure.com/

http://www.smartermeasure.com/about/

8

Input from college/program staff as well as the results of the student surveys were used to determine next steps and/or recommendations for enterprise deployment and associated remedial skill-development resources (development).

Survey Results Student Survey Forty-three (43) students participated in the SM pilot project: 24 CECH/ECE students and 19 UC Clermont students completed the SM online learner readiness assessment. (Originally there were 48; however, 5 students dropped.) Of the 43 students in the pilot, 21 responded to the feedback survey. In general, this (~ 50% response rate) is considered to be a good response. The responses tended to be fairly uniform and consistent, thereby, viewed as reliable information on the pilot. The following are some highlights from the student survey:

33%

29%

38%

# of Online Classes Taken

First Class

1 to 2

3 or More

45%55%

1st in Family to Attend College?

YESNO

29%

10%24%

9%9%

19%

Year in College

1st Yr

2nd Yr

3rd Yr

4th Yr

5th Yr

6 or More

9

• 100% Agree/Strongly agree that communications received from their program administrators, explaining what to do prior to start of term, instructions, etc. were clear.

• 95% only took one attempt to complete the SM assessment. • Majority noted that SM questions were clear, self-explanatory, and straight forward.

Individual comments included: Some questions caused me to pause, process and think before simply/quickly choosing an answer [self-reflection]; some unfamiliar terminology; I don’t remember what the questions were because I took the assessments a while back [implications for timing]

• 67% indicated that SM assessment results were what they expected; 33% indicated results were somewhat expected. Comments included: results provided better understanding of areas to improve/strengthen; I scored better in some sections than I assumed I would; I was surprised in a good way at some of my answers & was given clarity with some areas of my learning that I have wondered; I am aware of my abilities.

52%43%

5%

Clarity of Assessment Questions

Understood all thetime

Understood Mostof Time

Understood Someof Time

67%

33%

Results of the Assessment

Results What IExpected

SomewhatExpected

95%

5%

Value of the Assessment

Used the results

Did not useresults

95%

5%

How Beneficial Were the Resources?

Agreed/StronglyAgreed

Disagreed

10

• 95% indicated that they used results from the SM assessment to address identified area/s needing improvement.

• 95% agreed/strongly agreed that the online resources provided by SM were helpful. • Student comments regarding additional resources that would be helpful in preparing for

online learning experience included: o A weekly newsletter customized towards each student’s weak points would serve

as a reminder and help students continue to improve o Software/programs - what must be used and how they are to be

installed/downloaded…There is a disconnect in terminology used in just the basics of programming language…

o Online tutoring (2) and writing services o More information on citation o More videos about procrastination and motivation

Additional feedback from students, to help improve the process to prepare for success in online learning included:

o Talking to my academic advisor helped me a lot and that being mandatory is important.

o …on the technical side, assuming that the student population “should already know it” should NOT be the standard… i.e. JAVA, Kaltura, etc. Should not be taken for granted that students are already familiar with the “mechanics” of the program. More step-by-step instructions and visuals…

o …have students take the assessment in the middle, and at the end of the semester. This way they could see their improvement

o …it would be helpful if the two-week orientation that is provided for the health information technology and medical billing and coding students was available on a running basis meaning it did not matter when the student was accepted. As soon as the student could conceivably have access to it, let them start the process…communication with the student prior to the orientation would also be helpful…clearer communication and easier/earlier access to the orientation materials would be most helpful.

o None; I like the process as is; good tool to use; this was a great measure of if I was ready for online school (6)

Administrator & Advisor/Instructor Comments Both pilot groups integrated the SM Online Learner Readiness assessment into their current/existing onboarding practices (i.e., 2-week orientation or first course in the online program).

The program administrator for CECH/ECE tracked the students’ progress and felt that those who took the assessment generally performed better in the class. However, it was recognized that she had more contact with the students who took the assessment and this may have had an impact on their progress. The scores from Clermont seemed to indicate that the student’s technology proficiency was lower. This may be affecting their ability to function in the class.

11

The UC Clermont administrator mentioned three issues that may have impacted her students during the pilot.

• The lack of technology knowledge – i.e. not understanding how to perform the speed test • Lack of persistence – Not keeping up with the course assignments • Orientation – There were issues with Catalyst during orientation and students were not

provided M numbers, registered, etc. CECH Students who were provided the SM tool and instructions during two weeks prior to the start of Fall semester via e-mail. It was noted that the assessment may be more effective if it had been implemented earlier, prior to when the students meet with their advisors. This would help determine if an online course is a good fit for the student. It might be better to run the assessment prior to when students apply for the course. The assessment would not be used as a gatekeeper, but, rather, as a tool to identify deficiencies and areas of improvement prior to taking an online course. It was mentioned that it would be helpful to have a dedicated person at the unit level (perhaps a graduate student) to provide support to those who take the assessment and may want additional resources or information.

One concern with implementing the SM tool prior to admissions is that the student will use a non-UC email address (i.e., a personal email address) to log into the assessment. This will make it harder to link the student’s progress throughout the course back to their SM assessment scores.

The results of the assessment were useful to identify at-risk students and assist them during the term and students who were identified as at-risk were closely tracked during the semester.

Some student responses to the internet speed test questions (included in SM assessment) seemed to be an indicator that they did not have a good grasp of the technology. The numbers provided covered a broad range, some even unrealistic and many left the question blank. From the responses, it appeared that this was an indication of a lack of technical knowledge and also may be a functional issue for those participating in an online environment.

UC Clermont Students were provided the SM tool during the two-week orientation prior to the start of the semester. It provided students an opportunity to make critical adjustments in their lives prior to the start of the class. For example, items such as the need to make changes to work schedules, develop study habits, or reduce the number of credit hours could be handled prior to the first day of the semester. The method of reaching out to the students could be improved by the college by hosting a WebEx session to explain the assessment. Email is ok, however, often students do not read them.

The assessment reports are now part of the student’s record in Catalyst. The reports were used to provide resources during the semester. In addition, a meeting was held with students to discuss their results. Discussion with the students regarding how they can make adjustments were also initiated. Students’ progress was reviewed with instructors along with interventions that could be made to help students succeed.

12

The delivery of the SM assessment tool worked well. The feedback and meetings with students were good. The students said they would have liked to have the survey sooner because they forgot some things about the assessment tool.

The assessment was integrated in the two-week orientation. It was suggested that a better option may be to include it as part of the First Year Experience. Each section of the assessment could be covered in the FYE course during weekly reflections. The value of SM is to help students use the results to improve their learning experience.

Considerable time was spent reviewing the student assessments. Instructors met to discuss the results with the students early on in the semester and then later to reflect on the SM results compared to the student progress in the course. The follow-up was challenging. The reason is that many students said they did not have time to meet because of course requirements, jobs, and family responsibilities. This would be another justification for integrating the assessment into the FYE course, so it remains fresh with students.

Recommendations

Response from this small pilot project indicated that the online learning readiness assessment tool, used at an early stage in a student’s education, would be a beneficial aid to facilitate self-reflection and provide information on weaknesses or areas that may need attention prior to undertaking an online course. Ideally, it needs to be executed early enough for the student to find resources and engage in remedial assistance prior to the start of the class, if needed. To be most beneficial, results of the online learners’ readiness assessment should be shared with the student’s advisor and/or faculty to assist with guidance prior to and/or during the semester.

Based on the findings from this pilot, there are several features of an online readiness assessment tool that were identified as critical for success:

• Customization: The ability to select scales to include in the student assessment at the unit level allowed each participating unit to create their own assessment.

o Pilot groups implemented and incorporated the OLR assessment in different ways, based on their student group and current onboarding processes. This was important given existing practices/processes in place and ability to coordinate with/leverage existing approaches.

• Flexibility: Each unit was able to deploy and administer the assessment at various timeframes. This was important in order to leverage existing resources, processes and student communications/instructions at the unit level.

o The OLR assessment was deployed at different times/levels, based on resources/processes in place at the unit level.

• Self-Help Resources: The post-implementation survey found that the self-help web links and resources made available in the assessment were adequate and helpful, though there were areas identified where more resources would be beneficial.

13

• Analytics: Administrators designated by the pilot group had opportunity to access information on student views/attempts at the assessment as well as their interaction with the included self-help resources. The ability to retrieve this information for outreach purposes is critical for success, both for students and the tool itself.

University Level Recommendations Based on these findings, the following are recommendations for selecting and implementing an online learner readiness tool at the university level:

• Complete a thorough scan of the tools available for online learning readiness assessment. o The scan must include criteria addressing the aforementioned features

(customization, flexibility, the ability to insert and customize self-help resources, analytics), as these were incredibly beneficial during the pilot.

• Complete an RFP process to allow for identification of key variables needed in the tool, vendor presentations, and price negotiation.

o UC contracts of $15K or higher must be competitively bid (unless justification can be made for sole source contract.)

• Provide ongoing central support for the assessment tool, including contract negotiation, implementation, management of the tool, and funding.

• Create and deploy a communication plan to inform academic units that the online readiness tool is available as well as what their role and responsibility is for successful use.

• Incorporate the tool into UC’s Canopy of resources. • Create a user-support group for academic unit administrators to share experiences and

best practices. • Conduct annual assessments, starting with the end of the first year, to determine the

effectiveness of the chosen tool and resources, and inform modifications, resource development, and strategies for success moving forward.

• Support the development and maintenance of a UC web page with self-help resources to support online learner readiness assessment. This will allow the university to see which tools are being utilized (via web analytics). It will also allow the resources to be presented in a way that is consistent with UC branding practices. A good example of a website with self-help information and links is Portland Community College (see Appendix A).

o UC already has several resources in place that can be a part of such a webpage. The Knowledge Base and Lynda.com can both be utilized in the collection of self-help resources for students.

o Resources that are not readily available will be identified and developed with collaboration across eLearning stakeholders.

Unit Level Recommendations In addition to these enterprise-level recommendations, there are several academic unit-level recommendations to consider. These recommendations would be shared with academic units

14

interested in using the online learner readiness assessment via the aforementioned enterprise-level communication plan.

• To be most beneficial to students, resource(s) at the unit level would need to be identified and committed to oversee set-up and administration of the tool, including customization, communications plan, and deployment. Additionally, these resources must also be allocated in such a way that the unit is able to monitor and engage with learners as appropriate, including utilizing and/or incorporating assessment results as appropriate in existing practices

• Each academic unit would be responsible for the customization of their own assessment. This includes the assessment scales and the set(s) of questions to be included. Decisions should be made based on their learners.

• Deployment of the assessment tool should also occur at the local level. This will allow flexibility to deploy and administer the assessment at various timeframes and leverage existing resources, processes, and student communications at the unit level.

• A best practice recommendation identified by students in the pilot is for units utilizing the online learner readiness assessment to deploy the assessment early, prior to the start of class. This allows students time to do what is needed to address any identified deficiency (i.e., training, videos, self-help resources, etc.) prior to the start of the course. This speaks to the intent of the assessment and its results, which is to allow students the opportunity to self-reflect and/or identify areas for improvement in order to be successful moving forward in the online environment

Next Steps • Present final report and recommendations to eLearning Governance Committee for

endorsement (February 1, 2017) • Present pilot and next step recommendations to Associate Deans (February/March) • Initiate RFP process (convene team and develop RFP, including desired instrument

features, vendor support such as technical support, cost, etc.; engage Purchasing; develop a scoring process and vendor demo evaluation; etc.) February/March

• Conduct vendor presentations, as part of RFP process (March/April) • Select vendor (April/May) • Develop work plan and timeline (for August 2017 availability) to include:

communication plan, information and training sessions, etc. (April/May) • Work with college units who express interest in program to deploy tool and coordinate

implementation (June/July)

15

Pilot Project Committee Members

Melody Clark eLearning, Office of Online Learning

Kathleen Bryan College of Education, Criminal Justice & Human Services

Dawn Clineman College of Allied Health Sciences

Karen Lankisch UC Clermont

Pam Rankey UC Blue Ash

Janet Staderman Continuing Education/Communiversity

Megan Wuebker Enrollment Management, Advising & Academic Services

Tom Cruse (PMO) IT@UC

16

Appendix A

17

ELEARNING COMMITTEE ISSUE/ACTION FORM

AGENDA ITEM: _Video Strategy Task Force______ INITIATOR: _Tina Meagher / JP Leong Check Here if Action Item __X____ Check Here if Discussion Item _______ Date of Meeting: __03/01/2017_______________ Estimated Time Needed @ Meeting _15 Minutes_________

I. ISSUE/QUESTION/PROBLEM:

We would like to formalize the development of a strategy for the effective use of instructional video which was initially identified as one of the key strategies for the eLearning Ecosystem focus area in the eLearning strategic plan.

II. II. BACKGROUND DATA:

UC has invested in several enterprise level video tools. The increase in the usage of video has far exceeded the adoption rates of any previous digital tool, and is not expected to slow any time soon. The proliferation of HD video and the introduction of 4K video in prosumer video cameras and phones brings with them the anticipation that video will require significant increases in storage and bandwidth over the next three years.

With the increase in the amount of video content being created and captured, there is an expectation by students and faculty that video be used effectively in classes. To be effective, video must be purposeful, engaging and of good quality. This will often require consultation and/or support from instructional design, media specialist and technical resources to make sure faculty can produce quality video content for use in courses. In addition, there may also be added need for additional/updated equipment resources. A working group from the Video & Digital Media Subcommittee has started on a video strategy in an attempt to assist faculty, students and staff in understanding which tool is best used for which purposes. The group came up with a concept called, "The 7 Circles for Video Content Creation." (see attached: "7 circles" document). A project charter has also been drafted for this task force. (see attached: "Video Strategy Task Force Project Charter" document)

III. III. ACTION OPTIONS AVAILABLE:

Option A.

Option B.

Option C.

IV. RECOMMENDED OPTION WITH RATIONALE AND IMPLICATIONS:

Move forward with Video Strategy Task Force. Please see project charter (attached) with specifics on goals and outcomes for the project.

V. V. DISPOSITION (WHO DOES WHAT, WHEN) INCLUDING TIME FRAME:

VI. VI. MOTION:

We ask that the eLearning Committee approve the formation of this task force and authorize the chairs to continue and formalize the work on the video strategy.

2ND BY (MEMBER MAY BE IDENTIFIED AT THE MEETING): _____________________________________ (Submit to Jane Haniefy, [email protected] by 5 p.m. the Wednesday before the meeting.)

Formatted: Font: Helvetica, 11 pt

Formatted: Normal, Indent: Left: 0"

Project Management Office

UC Information Technologies (UCIT)

University of Cincinnati

PO Box 210658

Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0149

Suite 400, University Hall

51 Goodman Drive

(513) 556-9089

PROJECT CHARTER

Video Strategy Taskforce

02/22/17

Project Charter Video Strategy Taskforce

1

Contents PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT ............................................................................................................................. 2

PROJECT OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................... 2

Project Description and Goals .................................................................................................................. 2

Business Case ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Project Scope ............................................................................................................................................ 3

Project Assumptions and Constraints ...................................................................................................... 3

Project Risks .............................................................................................................................................. 4

High-Level Costs/Budget .......................................................................................................................... 4

Project Deliverables and Milestones ....................................................................................................... 4

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................................................................... 4

Project Sponsors ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Project Team Member Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................................. 5

Communication Strategy ......................................................................................................................... 6

Related Documents and Materials .......................................................................................................... 6

SPONSOR APPROVALS ................................................................................................................................... 6


2

PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT The Project Charter represents a commitment to dedicate the necessary time and resources to the project. It formalizes the existence of the project and demonstrates management support for it. The purpose of the Project Charter is:

• To provide an understanding of the project, the reason it is being conducted and its justification; • To establish early on in the project the general scope, • To establish team members’ roles and responsibilities, and • To define project deliverables and a high level timeline

PROJECT OVERVIEW

Project Description and Goals The task force has been charged with developing a strategy for the effective use of instructional video which was initally identified as one of the key strategies for the eLearning Ecosystem focus area in the eLearning strategic plan. This project team will consist of team memebers from around the university that produce videos for academic and professional use, those who assist faculty and students in the creation of video and faculty and staff who create their own content.

The following steps outline the high-level goals of the project:

1. Establish categories and types of video that can be created for instructional and professional videos. 2. Define best practies for creation of media that support/align with learning objectives and audience while

insuring that videos are purposeful, intentional and of good quality. 3. Provide a standardized toolset for creating video content and provide advice on tools that are not in the

standardized toolset. 4. Recommend the following:

• required facilities and resources to support creation of quality video content • required support and training for creating engaging video content • how to utilize analytics tools to measure the effectiveness of instructional videos • requirements for captioning instructional videos.

5. Ensure that the University is taking an intentional approach to the creation and use of instructional video by considering support, resources, professional development and policy alignment.

6. Establish UC as a leader in the development of media fluent video content creators.


3

Business Case The increase in the usage of video has far exceeded the adoption rates of any previous digital tool and is not expected to slow any time soon. The proliferation of HD video and the introduction of 4K video in prosumer video cameras and phones brings with them the anticipation that video will require significant increases in storage and bandwidth over the next three years. With the increase in the amount of video content created and captured, there is an expectation by students and faculty that video be used effectively in classes. To be effective, video must be purposeful, engaging and of good quality. This will often require consultation and/or support from instructional design, media specialist and technical resources to make sure faculty can produce quality video content for use in courses. In addition, there may also be added need for additional/updated equipment resources.

Project Scope

The project scope defines project limits and identifies the products and/or services delivered by the project. The scope establishes the boundaries of the project and should describe products and/or services that are outside of the project scope.

Project Includes:

• All UC colleges and campuses, including Clermont and Blue Ash • Establishing standards and best practices for media content creation • Leveraging best use of tools like Echo360, Kaltura, WebEx and Storyline • Provide recommendations for standardized set of tools supported by UC to assist users in creating content • Identify or provide suggestions for campus resources avalaible to assist faculty, students and staff in content

creation • Present workflow guidelines and instructional resources for faculty, students, and staff • Recommendation for tools outside of standardized set, which are not supported by UC • Aligmnet with university strategies such as UC Online, EIT Captioning Policy, and the Teach Act/Fair Use Policy

Project Excludes:

• Support for non-enetrprise video tools

Project Assumptions and Constraints Assumptions can affect any area of the Project including scope, stakeholders, business objectives and requirements.

Assumptions made in defining this project:

• Resources will be available as per the project plans • There are no major architectural changes to the enterprise systems that are central to this project, including

Kaltura, WebEx, Echo360 or Storyline


4

Key constraints defining limitations and boundaries for the project:

• Academic calendar may impact faculty availability for training • Resources may not be fully available until after the start of fall semester 2018 • Instructional designers and media staff resources may not be available in every college

Project Risks The high level risks identified for this project are listed below. As additional risks are identified throughout the project, they will be added to the project risk register and monitored.):

• Costs for video bandwith/storage with increased usage • Asking colleges to provide resources like staff and equipment to support their colleges may not be feasible • The university makes significant changes to any of the enterprise video tools such as WebEx, Kaltura, Echo360 or

Storyline • Staffing levels in the Center for Excellence in eLearning are insufficient to maintain continuity of this project

should key individuals leave the university or assume new roles • The decentralized nature of the university’s colleges creates a challenge to long-term sustainability

High-Level Costs/Budget The following outlines the project expenses and budget, if applicable:

• Need to bench mark other media labs and resources • Identify staffing resource needs • Identify lab resources/equipment for content creation on main campus, medical campus and the regional

campuses

Project Deliverables and Milestones The following are the project’s deliverables and target dates for their completion:

Project Deliverable or Milestone Target Completion Date

Kick-Off Meeting April, 2017 Categorize needs/goals April, 2017 Finalize categories/types of videos April, 2017 Identify physical, equipment and staff resources May, 2017 Stadardize on media tool kit July, 2017 Provide recommendation to eLearning committee September, 2017


5

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Project Sponsor The project sponsors have a demonstrable interest in the outcome of the project. The role of the project sponsors may include the following:

• Champion the project at the university level to secure buy-in • Approve the project charter • Legitimize the project goals • Allocate project resources • Participate in high level planning of the project • Serve as an escalation path for issues beyond control of the project manager • Attend Steering Committee meetings to provide feedback on project deliverables • Provide formal sign-off on the project

Name of Project Sponsor Title of Project Sponsor

Chris Edwards AVP of eLearning

Steering Committee The Project Steering Committee is a decision-making team of key stakeholders who provide, review and monitor strategic direction and policy guidance to the project team and other stakeholders. The role of the Steering Committee members may include the following:

• Review and approve major changes to project direction and cost • Act as an escalation point and decision maker for issues and decisions requiring executive level input • Attend Steering Committee meetings to provide feedback on project deliverables

Name of Steering Committee Member Title of Steering Committee Member

Tina Meagher Chair JP Leong Co-Chair

Project Team Member Roles and Responsibilities Name Title Role Business Unit


6

Communication Strategy

The PIO will communicate with all sponsors and stakeholders as defined in the Communication Plan. Weekly touchbase meetings will be scheduled and weekly status reports (including risks/issues and plan to mitigate) will be distributed.

Related Documents and Materials

All pertinent documents, Charter, meeting agendas and minutes, scope matrix, project schedule, designs, etc. will be stored on Box. All members of the project team will be given access to Box.

SPONSOR APPROVALS Approval of the Project Charter indicates an understanding of the purpose and content described in this deliverable. By signing this deliverable, each individual agrees work should be initiated on this project and necessary resources should be committed.

Approver Name Title Signature/Approval Date

Paul Foster Director, eLearning Technology /s/Paul Foster 8/1/16

https://uc.app.box.com/files/0/f/19497055768/Video_Strategy_TaskForce

Student Created Video • Discussion

Board/Blog/Journal Posts • Interviews • Demonstrations • Video Projects • Documentation • Presentations • Introductions • Reflections • Assessments

3rd Party Sources • Khan

Academy • Ted-X • YouTube • Vimeo • Publisher

Videos • ESPN, MSNBC

UC Licensed Sources • Library Video

Database • Lynda Learns • Commercial

Movies • Documentaries

Current Term (Single Use)

• Announcements • Video feedback for

assignments • Course overview • Syllabus overview • Week in review • Assignment overview

Multi-Term (Course/Program specific)

• Voice-Over PowerPoint • Seminars • Simulations • Demonstrations • Just-in-Time tutorials • In the field

Classroom Capture (Documentation of activities) • Lecture Capture • Guest Speakers • Student presentations • Student speeches • Labs/Simulations • Rehearsals • Critiques • Evaluation

Faculty/Student Created Video Content

Professionally Produced Video Content

Live Video (Special Events)

• High Profile Guest Speaker • Recitals • Plays • Commencement • Awards • Press Releases/Breaking

News • Webinars

Marketing/Recruiting/For Profit (Narrative/Scripted)

• Commercials • Public Relations • Professional Development • Demonstrations • Documentary • Simulations • Dramatizations • Virtual Tours

Instructional Design/Pedagogy (ID/P) Subcommittee Charter

ID/P Subcommittee Mission Statement The Instructional Design/Pedagogy Subcommittee will work in partnership with other key groups across campus to recommend policy and practices to support sustainable, scalable, supportable, and innovative course design and pedagogy. The work of the subcommittee will include:

• recommending a university-wide approach for adoption of Universal Design for Learning • promoting online course quality and a course design review process; • providing input and oversight on a CEeL-developed university default eLearning course

template(s) • identifying and promoting best practices; • clarifying the role of information technology (IT) and instructional design (ID) personnel in the

course development process; • reviewing and making recommendations as part of the decision-making process prior to

implementation of new and emerging technologies in the context of instructional design best practices and pedagogical support;

• developing policy and processes to ensure compliance and accessibility (such as Quality Matters, Copyright, Fair Use, TEACH Act, ADA 504/508, etc.).

Annual Subcommittee Goals The ID/P subcommittee will establish annual goals specifying its principal work and focus areas for the academic year. (See Working Groups for details on annual goals)

Committee Composition, Appointments, and Term Limits • Co-Chairs (2) - nominated and approved by the eLearning Committee

o 1 co-chair from the Center for Excellence in eLearning o 1 co-chair from an academic/administrative unit

These appointments do not carry term limits to ensure adequate operational expertise, but can be replaced by the AVP due to attrition, reassignment, or voluntary resignation from the committee.

• Up to 2 representatives from each college, consisting of 1 Instructional Designer and an instructor. For colleges with no Instructional Designers, up to 2 instructors may represent the college.

o These appointments do not carry term limits to ensure adequate operational expertise, but can be replaced by the college due to attrition, reassignment, or voluntary resignation from the committee.

Voting members: • Each co-chair has one vote.

• Each college is limited to one vote. Annually, the college will be asked to provide the name of its representatives and voting member.

• The academic co-chair vote is in addition to that college’s vote. • A voting member may send an alternate if needed to provide the college with a vote.

Meetings The ID/P subcommittee meets once per month (or as required, depending on pressing matters) to discuss and/or or vote on submitted requests at the call of the subcommittee co-chairs. Meeting dates and times should be specified a year in advance. Please Note: To accommodate member faculty teaching schedules, meeting times may need to be adjusted at the beginning of each semester. Non-representative attendees: Instructional Designers and instructors are open to attend meetings. Regardless of the number of people representing a single college, the college has a single vote. Upon invitation, advisers, subject matter experts and additional personnel may attend ID/P subcommittee meetings. However, they are not voting members. Membership Roles and Responsibilities The co-chairs will schedule the committee meetings and communicate meeting information with members. They will prepare agendas, convene meetings, call for votes on requests, and submit Issue/Action forms to the eLearning Committee as required. Meeting notes will be shared in the ID/P Subcommittee Box folder. Voting members are required to attend all regularly scheduled meetings. Therefore, meetings will be scheduled at the beginning of the academic year and will utilize web conferencing to help facilitate member attendance. A voting member may send an alternate if needed to provide the college with a vote. If there is a work-related conflict, it is expected that members will provide at least 24 hour notice and they will have the option to send a representative on their behalf. However, proxy representatives are not voting members. Members with extensive non-work related absences per academic year and/or who do not provide advanced notice, may be asked to identify a replacement representative by the committee. If a voting member will be absent for an extended period, they can work with the co-chairs to assign a voting proxy.

IT@UC Governance | eLearning Topical Committee Meeting

February 2017 Subcommittee Summary: The subcommittee unanimously approved the motion to update the java development kit (JDK) on the Blackboard application servers on March 16th at 4AM. This maintenance does not require downtime and will not impact end-users. The JDK update is being done to resolve a security flaw in the current JDK version.

The subcommittee was informed of the ongoing discussion in Faculty Senate concerning embedded users in Blackboard courses. This includes but is not limited to the Athletic Department, Learning Communities, and IT/ID personnel being enrolled into courses within Bb. The Faculty Senate Academic Affairs Committee invited Ron Jones, President of the AAUP, and Cynthia Ris, Chair of the Contract Compliance and Education committee, to provide an AAUP perspective on the issue, which included a discussion of Academic Freedom, IP, FERPA, and issues related to shared governance and other confidentiality concerns. No action was taken at that time, although a possible resolution discussed suggests that the LMS subcommittee might have a larger role in this process to formalize how users are added to a course and why they are added. The LMS subcommittee co-chairs will be meeting in March to discuss some of these issues further and how the committee can move forward to assist the ongoing conversations.

The timing behind when Blackboard student enrollments are processed was also discussed. Due to business practices, the Blackboard system administrator group no longer uses the built-in connector between Blackboard & Catalyst to enroll users into Blackboard courses. Since the process has been removed from production this allows the University to start enrolling students into courses at a later time rather than when instructors are added to the course. The subcommittee will evaluate when the best time is to enroll students into courses prior to the start of term. This will then be voted on and implemented for Fall semester enrollments of 2017.

LMS Subcommittee Monthly Update for eLearning Topical Committee Greg Lloyd - Co-chair IT@UC - Tech Lead, eLearning Application Services [email protected] (513)556-3065 Cynthia Ris – Co-chair Professor - Educator, A&S English & Comparative Literature [email protected] (513)556-6667 Subcommittee Members Jon Adams Melanie Bauer Julie Breen Rachel Frankel Don Hodges Vernon Jackson Emanuel Lewis Greg Lloyd Lisa Padgett Dave Rathbun Cynthia Ris Angie Robbins Victoria Wangia Student Government – TBD GSGA – TBD Paul Foster (IT@UC Advisor) Jane Haniefy (PMO Advisor) Lisa Capan (Bb Advisor)