REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Learning Management System Task Force
May 16, 2014 10:30-12:30 am
Location TBA
Notes
LMS Task Force Goal
The Learning Management System (LMS) Task Force was established in order to determine which
learning management system will most effectively and sustainably support all modalities (face-to-face,
hybrid and online) of teaching and learning at College of the Redwoods.
1. Call to Order
Members present - Riggs, Wendy - Renner, Mark - Sayles, Lisa - Hill, Angelina Giovannetti, Reno - Winter, Mark - Sokolow, Gary – Napoleonzagoria, Tom
2. Request note taker
a. Reno Giovannetti
3. Reports
3.1 IT Research
We received a summary of The Online Education Initiative (OEI), as a project of the
California Community College Chancellor’s Office from Lisa, Angelina and Reno:
We discussed the Initiative’s time line selecting a Common Course Management System
(CCMS) by June of 2015, this process may give the state some economic leverage to
reduce costs associated with the LMS and, among other things, faculty/staff support
services, Professional Development, Certification, Student Services Roadmap, Course
approval process, Streamlined faculty/staff online course delivery and certification.
Angelina reported that Canvas has two pilot programs, one with support (400 users $10,000) and one for free. We need to investigate the details of these options – can we
use both? Also she reported that the Moodle quote was off because they had only quoted
1500 users and that we needed to factor in video capture services. Etudes final quote was
around $87,000.
Mark Renner asked about getting or documenting the total cost of ownership for our
candidates and our current LMS Sakai – What is the true cost of Sakai with support and
add-on programs. It was estimated that R-Smart may be in line with some of our
candidates when we consider the hidden costs. It was also noted that what we are paying
for R-Smart is out of line with any other LMS on the market.
Gary talked about the need to keep the Turnitin online service as a separate license even
if integration is possible due to the functionality of that service and as a backup for
instructors who may have issues with the integration. It was suggested that integration
would not lead to the loss of direct access and would involve minimal extra cost if any.
3.2 CCC Online Education Initiative, pilot college, and consortium membership
Lisa and Angelina have filled out the application for CR to be included in the pilot
program – if selected we would need to provide one or two course sections to include in
the pilot – Discussion of which LMS we could use (could it be the LMS we are piloting
this Fall not Sakai)
4. Discussion Items
4.1 How OEI should factor into our process
Multiple discussions addressed the issue of how to factor in the OEI process with our
timeline. The impact of the OEI selecting an LMS different from ours was openly
debated.
The main concern expressed was that we did not want to put the students and faculty thru
multiple system migrations in a short time period if at all possible.
Another topic of concern was the future cost impact that the OEI selection may have on
LMS systems – The OEI may be able to reduce the cost of using their selected LMS.
That could be a driver to switch LMS systems in the near future.
It was pointed out that some vendors had stated that this would also apply pressure on
them to lower their costs if they were not selected by the state in order to compete in
CA.
(these issues are addressed below)
4.2 Discuss LMS ratings on matrix – revise based on quality/degree of features
We discussed at length the Matrix results. Rather than address each item separately it was
determined that we would scan the matrix and concentrate on areas that seemed to be
key missing factors or key benefits and identify areas where the candidates showed
marked differences. Some adjustments were made based on possible ambiguity in the
matrix items but the majority of answers from the vendors were found to be
acceptable given that we would need to consider the degree of truthiness for each key
issue.
The following top key areas were identified from the student and faculty surveys:
Ease of use and intuitive interface (for both students and faculty). It was pointed out that
how well faculty are trained to use the tools could also be a factor for students’
perceptions.
Event tracking, notifications and progress tracking (for both students and faculty).
For students a clear and easy to understand gradebook/evaluation system. For faculty free
access to the LMS from mobile devices
As a sub note during the debate about key areas and application interfaces it was again
brought up that for the math department the equation editor would be a key factor for
them. It was recommended that someone from the math department should look at the
LMS candidate Sandboxes and evaluate current offerings and possible integration of
3rd party tools if necessary.
4.3 Discuss timeline
4.4 Task Force meetings needed for fall 2014 - Convocation/during term check in?
5. Action Items
5.1 Rank, narrow and select an LMS
During the matrix discussion it was determined that Moodle along with Etudes would be
eliminated from consideration based on the above key factors and the fact that it
would not be one of the OEI candidates.
The general consensus was that any of the remaining candidates would be far superior to
our current LMS and would meet all of our basic criteria. A few members expressed the
need to investigate D2L further to differentiate it from the other candidates.
It was decided we should poll each member of the committee to determine how close to a
consensus we were based on the current information. Each member would recommend a
first and secondary choice:
Winter, Mark : 1-Canvas, 2-Blackboard
Riggs, Wendy: 1-Canvas, 2-D2L (with more investigation needed)
Giovannetti, Reno: 1-Canvas, 2-D2L
Sokolow, Gary: 1-Blackboard, 2-Canvis
Napoleonzagoria, Tom: 1- Canvas, 2 – No opinion
Renner, Mark: 1- Canvas, 2- Blackboard?(not enough information to give an opinion)
Hill, Angelina: 1-Canvas, 2-D2L? (Blackboard very powerful but also may be difficult
to use, has a lot of analysis functionality)
Sayles, Lisa 1-Canvas, 2- D2L
The general consensus seemed to be that all other things being equal Canvas would be a
good first Choice and D2L a second choice. Lisa pointed out that we needed a consensus
and all members present agreed that it would be acceptable to make this the committee’s
recommendation. It was also pointed out that not all members were present. This also was
deemed acceptable for now and that we would contact missing members and amend our
recommendations if new information came to light.
5.2 Determine timeline
The time line and OEI factor were discussed with the key issue being the possible delay
or extension of the Fall pilot to give the OEI time to recommend an LMS. The options:
a. Maintain timeline – Fall pilot/Spring adoption
b. Extend timeline option 1 – Fall and Spring pilot/Fall 2015 adoption – delay for
OEI
c. Extend timeline option 2 – Spring pilot/Fall 2015 adoption – delay for OEI
d. Extend timeline option 3 – No pilot Fall – wait entirely for OEI
After a debate it was determined that there was no real downside to continuing our
process (Option A above) and that we would reevaluate our position in the Fall. We also
determined that we would continue to peruse involvement in the OEI pilot program in
tandem with our LMS pilot of Canvas.
A discussion of how the pilot would be implemented took place and it was determined
that Angelina would need to get more information about what the best way to proceed
would be and get approval for the $10,000 pilot program. It was also brought up that the
exact procedure for acquiring funds for the LMS had not been determined yet.
Also the question of whether there would be any union issues with running a pilot came
up and Gary said that he would find the answer to that question (flex time was also
discussed as an option).
A discussion of the need for careful consideration of any contract negotiations with
Canvas took place. The idea of including language that would take into account the OEI
CMS/LMS recommendations came up with a possible back out or renegotiation clause
that would allow us to take advantage of any discounts the OEI might negotiate.
The issue of releasing the committee’s reconditions and how to solicit Canvas pilot
candidates was discussed. It was recommended that Keith Snow-Flamer be involved with
the timing and release of any official information but that the committee’s
recommendations are not confidential. Mark Winter and Mark Renner will need to be
involved in the piloting process once approval has been given to proceed.
5.3 Schedule Fall 2014 meeting
TBD – over the summer
6. Future Agenda items
6.1
6.2 Generate/review formal process report
7. Announcements
8. Adjourn
PARTICIPANT DETAILS
Dial your telephone conference line: 1-913-312-3202 or 1-888-886-3951
Cell phone users dial: 1-913-312-3202
Enter your passcode: 799828
Go to www.cccconfer.org Click the Participant Log In button under the Meet & Confer logo
Locate your meeting and click Go Fill out the form and enter the passcode: 799828
PARTICIPANT CONFERENCE FEATURES
*0 - Contact the operator for audio assistance
*6 - Mute/unmute your individual line
FOR ASSISTANCE
CCC Confer Client Services - Monday - Friday between 8:00 am - 4:00 pm
Phone: 1-760-744-1150 ext 1537 or 1554
Email: clientservices@cccconfer.org