OCDE Courseware Task Force

Meeting @ OhioLINK, Columbus

March 10, 2003

Meeting notes by Doug Mann, Chair

CTF overlap with rest of OCDE

• Institutional repository/knowledge bank

• My Learning Space

• CMS licensing

• Ohio Grid

• Statewide directory/authentication

• Faculty Development

• CMS support

Our CMS experiences

• Charly Bauer – OhioLINK, working on institutional repository project for faculty scholarly documents for preservation, sharing. 200k objects, terabytes of data. Overlap with CMS. How to balance institutional autonomy with state goals for sharable content?

• Anita Cook – OhioLink, My Learning Space would be personal storage space that’s shareable, online resumes, working on a survey

Our CMS experiences – 2

• Steve Gordon, OSC; Ohio Grid, re-using computing clusters, enabling grid computing; tools for job scheduling, authentication (possible central directory), data set sharing; statewide software tool licensing; hosting WebCT for 8-9 campuses, plus interest from virtual high schools. Looking at a mass storage management system, which will be highly accessible via Third Frontier Network.

• Angie Galipault, OSC: WebCT licensing (32 licenses) via contract with OLN. Serves as WebCT administrator.

Our CMS experiences – 3

• Tanya Hahn, Franklin: created own C2K system, used by every course (5k students, Datatel interface). Combination of homegrown and purchased pieces. Interfaces with Novell Groupwise, LDAP, java-based portal w/student services, eArmy. Working on XML web content mgt. system that can produce pdf’s, web pages, C2K pages.

• Tom Klingler, Kent State: joint contract with Akron to run Vista (from hardware at Akron). Long-time WebCT users with SIS integration, electronic reserves links. Using OSS Linux, MySQL. Vision for single open-source OKI state CMS in five years.

Our CMS experiences – 4

• Victoria Getis, OSU – TELR group, 30,000 student accounts, 50,000 enrollment, WebCT 3.8. WebCT wanted 3-yr contract for Vista. Looking at other products via RFI (20 vendors), down to 4: Vista, Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Angel. Decision Aug/Sept 2003.

• Terri Klaus, Wright State – Center for Teaching and Learning w/seven staff. WebCT since 1999, 3-yr contract. Vista has a multi-institution architecture. Three degree programs, 200+ courses per quarter, 40% of faculty. Not integrated with SIS. Unionized faculty. Need consistent definition of DL (what % of course has to be online). Quality control (e.g., criteria for online materials).

Our CMS experiences – 5

• Ed Busher, CSCC – Director of Tech for Teaching center. Blackboard, 8-9k student users, 5.5k for DL. (Doug’s laptop crashed here – Ed said more.)

• Sheryl Hansen – OLN. How to design courses for DL, and for learner-centered course design for web-enhanced or DL courses. WebCT state contract for live courses (OARnet Bb for trial courses). WebCT consortium pursuing 1 & 3-yr options for licensing. 32 schools, half 3-yr, half 1-yr.

• Anita Cook, OhioLINK – Can assemble online course packets.

• Scott Siddall, Denison U – Blackboard 5.5.2 Basic system, 7.5k/yr. Easy to run, .2 FTE system admin. 50% + use in current courses. Bb support is weak for Basic system. Using OSS (uPortal, listserv), OKI (two years in OKI workshops). Midwest liberal arts schools – modest CMS use, mostly Bb. Need more diverse pedagogical capabilities in a CMS (need open source). Piloting Stanford’s CourseWork (2.1, v3 in July). Also U. Mich CHEF (Comprehensive Collaborative Framework). Can’t find OSS asset management tools.

Our CMS experiences - 6

Our CMS experiences - 7

• July Leach, OLN: budget and fiscal for WebCT training and licensing.

• Kate Carey, OLN: had a courseware group in 2000.

Ohio U Bb Future plans

• 2003: non-term-based courses

• 2003: faculty and staff workgroups

• Develop audience-specific portal modules to deliver news and personalized content

• Utilize Bb transaction system

OU Lessons learned

• External authentication (single sign-on) is essential for a robust, scalable, supportable, eLearning/portal environment

• Caveat: Wisconsin’s dot.edu is running 175k students and 10k courses WITHOUT a statewide integrated directory

OU Lessons learned

• How to achieve both automation/scalability and flexibility?

• Data loads support automation and scalability

• Self-service site for faculty supports flexibility (creating/reactivating course accounts, combining sections, managing extra users)

OU Lessons learned

• Security is a necessity, not an afterthought

• Server and application security

• End-to-end network security (e.g., encryption via SSL)

OU Lessons learned

• Like any IT system, operating costs are more significant than startup costs

• Also consider opportunity costs (e.g., what is your best programmer NOT doing in order to work on this project?)

Five eLearning options

• Program it yourself

• Combine tools from one vendor (e.g., Microsoft)

• Extend an open-source CMS

• Extend a commercial CNS (Blackboard, WebCT/NuVista, desire2learn)

• ASP model

Important concepts

• SCORM• OKI• Shared content repository• External authentication• Security• Other uses of a CMS, e.g., workgroup• Portals• Intellectual property• Copyright

Important concepts 2

• ADA/accessibility/508 compliance

• E-Commerce

Assumptions

• CMS is mission-critical• Costs for single-campus systems to license

products will continue to increase• Commercial CMS’s will only slowly increase in

pedagogical flexibility.• Most campuses are committed to one or more

existing CMS systems.• Faculty want more functionality and easier-to-use

CMS software, without rapid change.

Assumptions 2

• Student demand for web-enhanced courses AND for distance learning courses will increase.

• Any new CMS service must have statewide training and support.

Resources

• Third Frontier Network (OC-48 to each campus, initially Gigabit Ethernet channel)

• OSC mass storage project• Possible Technology Initiatives funding ($3.6 Mil. for

current biennium)• OhioLINK Digital Media Center• Money currently being spent on CMS (e.g., $1.7 mil in

Ohio spent w/WebCT)• $2 mil one-time Ohio MHEC investment in Distributed

Learning Workshop (CMS-type tool included for math ed)• PEW results (large course redesign)• Battelle investments in K-12

Goals

• Articulate the value of OCDE/CMS software for the state (in comparison to ERP)

• Enhance WebCT services (Vista, subsidized cost recovery, increased help desk support?).

• Survey schools in Ohio about what CMS services are of interest to them, on what terms.

• Showcase some successful, low-cost OSS solutions (e.g., CourseWork @ Denison), and caveats.

Goals 2

• Establish Blackboard hosting equivalent to WebCT services (assuming Blackboard will negotiate; pressure from Wisconsin switch?).

• Recommend short-term (2-year) and long-term solutions and directions.

• Long-term solution/vision might be a development group using OKI and other standards to develop an Ohio CMS.

Goals 3

• Demonstrate how we can slow the growth of CMS costs in Ohio (e.g., sharing courseware development, learning objects, servers & admin.).

• Show how we can get more out of Ohio’s CMS investment.

• Articulate the issues in any statewide CMS service (faculty and student needs, integration with ERP, authentication).

Goals 4

• Integrate content-searching tools into CMS

• Explore statewide contracts with new CMS’s such as Desire2Learn.

Action Items

• Start survey design (Mann, Getis, Hahn, Klaus, OSC student)

• Explore OSS cases and costs. (Gordon – costs, Siddall – cases)

• Group: WebCT service enhancement, establishing Bb service (Galipault, OLN, Bb licensees meeting?)

• Describe short-term cost-containment measures (e.g., models for sharing content, more hosting, reducing licensing costs?)

• Next meeting: April 8, 11 am – 3 pm in Columbus (Location TBD, probably OhioLINK or OARnet)