Canvas-Blackboard Evaluation
Draft Date: 29 November 2012
Prepared by: Chris Schedler, Director of Multimodal Learning
Background Info
In April 2012, the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC) completed an RFP process
to select a new Learning Management System (LMS) for their institutions. Representatives from all the
state universities were included on the RFP committee. Chris Schedler was the CWU representative and
participated in scoring proposals, evaluating vendor demos, and selecting the successful vendor.
Instructure Canvas was selected as the LMS vendor, and in June 2012 SBCTC completed negotiations for
a contract, which is also open to any of the state universities to join: EWU and UW are transitioning to
Canvas, WWU is piloting Canvas, WSU and Evergreen are exploring the option.
This is a good opportunity to evaluate our current LMS (Blackboard) in a side-by-side comparison with
Canvas in terms of functionality, usability, training, support, reliability, interoperability, and costs. The
newly configured Academic Technology Advisory Council (ATAC) will perform the initial review and make
a recommendation to the Enterprise Technology committee whether or not to proceed with Canvas
pilot program.
Areas for Review
1. Teaching & Learning (Faculty/Student Reps): Comparison of functionality and usability of Canvas
and Blackboard using rubric adapted from LMS RFP:
 Major differences in functionality (Content, Communication, Assessment,
Customization)
 User interface and usability
 Mobile app
 Time to convert/prepare courses
2. Multimodal Learning (MML Reps): Comparison of training and support needs of Canvas and
Blackboard based on current CWU Bb usage and SBCTC Canvas usage:
 System administration
 Training and conversion requirements
 Faculty and student support requests
 Accessibility (ADA)
 Add-on systems costs: Plagiarism Detection (SafeAssign vs. Turnitin), Web Conferencing
(Collaborate vs. Big Blue Button)
3. Enterprise Technology (ITS Reps): Comparison of reliability, interoperability, and costs of Canvas
and Blackboard based on current CWU Bb usage and SBCTC Canvas usage:
 Overall uptime/downtime
 Responsiveness and reliability (feature requests, updates, and patches)
 Integrations: PeopleSoft, MobileCampus, Respondus Quiz-Builder, Respondus Lockdown
Browser, EvaluationKit, WayPoint Assessment, GoCentral, iTunesU, Publisher Content
(McGraw-Hill, Pearson MyLab, Cengage, Wiley), Turning Technology Clickers, Internships
 Storage limitations
 Expected one-time and ongoing costs (Hosted vs. Software-as-Service)
Timeline






12/7/12 ATAC Meeting: Present evaluation plan for review and edits; assign members to
evaluation teams and areas of responsibility
1/11/12 Complete evaluations and submit to Chris Schedler
1st Winter ATAC Meeting: Present evaluations and make recommendation whether or not to
proceed with Canvas pilot program
Winter quarter: For pilot program, recruit up to 25 faculty to participate, provide training
workshops, and assist with course conversion/creation
Spring quarter: For pilot program, schedule focus group meetings with pilot faculty, survey pilot
students, provide support to faculty and students
Final Spring ATAC meeting: Submit results of pilot program to ATAC and make recommendation
whether or not to complete campus-wide evaluation and scale-up Canvas adoption