• If using microphone:
– Tools  Audio  Audio Setup Wizard…
• If using telephone:
– Click telephone icon  dial in number/code  OK
– Mute phone when not in use
Open Source Learning Management Systems (OSLMS) Partnership Grant
Allegany · Anne Arundel · Calvert · Cecil · Dorchester · Frederick · Prince Georges · Washington · Worcester
Functionality Rubric | Development Sub-committee
Purpose
• Purpose of today’s meeting:
– Introduce the work of each sub-committee
– Recap group discussions from the last
meeting pertaining to development
– Explore various functionality rubrics
– Construct a plan for our next f2f meeting on
Thursday, March 25th.
Open Source Learning Management Systems (OSLMS) Partnership Grant
Allegany · Anne Arundel · Calvert · Cecil · Dorchester · Frederick · Prince Georges · Washington · Worcester
Functionality Rubric | Development Sub-committee
Action Items for each sub-committee
• Development Sub-Committee
Action Items:
– Construct a functionality rubric
– Draft directions to go with the rubric
• Implementation Sub-Committee
Action Items:
– Determine course materials for testing
– Determine skill sets for each testing role
– Establish testing panels
Open Source Learning Management Systems (OSLMS) Partnership Grant
Allegany · Anne Arundel · Calvert · Cecil · Dorchester · Frederick · Prince Georges · Washington · Worcester
Functionality Rubric | Development Sub-committee
Focus and Considerations
• Focus:
System capabilities / ease of use. Tech. specs and costs
will NOT be included in our Functionality Rubric.
Another document will be included with this information,
possibly as an appendix when we document our
findings.
• Considerations:
Our list of functions to be tested will need to be
comprehensive. A weighted system needs to be created
based on our needs assessment data.
Detailed instructions for completing the rubric within the
testing environment will need to be included.
Open Source Learning Management Systems (OSLMS) Partnership Grant
Allegany · Anne Arundel · Calvert · Cecil · Dorchester · Frederick · Prince Georges · Washington · Worcester
Functionality Rubric | Development Sub-committee
Group Responses from the last meeting
• Functions for inclusion in rubric are identified:
– Use an existing rubric-review and adapt existing rubric.
– A small sub-committee should work to revise the functionality
rubric.
– Will need technical expertise (teaching). Several levels on this
committee: technical, network, instructional
– Committee possible composition: 3 network, 3 instructional, and
1 from every district.
– Test all functions except for those not essential. A system of
weights will be used to determine more essential from less
essential functions.
– Definitely the functions from the needs assessment that scored
60% or higher… but not just them, maybe all of the functions.
– Include different file types and compatibility
– Support online documentation
Open Source Learning Management Systems (OSLMS) Partnership Grant
Allegany · Anne Arundel · Calvert · Cecil · Dorchester · Frederick · Prince Georges · Washington · Worcester
Functionality Rubric | Development Sub-committee
Group Responses from the last meeting
• A rating system / Design Model is created:
– Rating system should come from needs assessment data.
– Look at weights- everything that is 60 is a 3.
– Start at 4, 3/2 nice to have, 1-there is an add-on, 0- no work
around or add on.
– Small likert scale ratings for must have, nice to have, not
essential (1- not as good as it could be. No add-on or cost; 2Alright- low/no cost add-on; 3 Good as is.
– If the scores were, for example, 3,2,1, then we could filter out all
of the 3s. We could see the big picture, and then just the highest
scoring. It would be essential to have a mutiplier, so that we
could weigh our 60% or greater features from the needs
assessment more heavily.
Open Source Learning Management Systems (OSLMS) Partnership Grant
Allegany · Anne Arundel · Calvert · Cecil · Dorchester · Frederick · Prince Georges · Washington · Worcester
Functionality Rubric | Development Sub-committee
Group Responses from the last meeting
• A rating system / Design Model is created:
– Capture the data, but keep in mind that you do not want to
reward a product that does everything, yet does not do
everything well.
– There should be some way to standardize the rubric item.
– Take under consideration the work arounds- should we capture
work arounds and add-ons when considering rating?
Consider possible costs that would be incurred.
– Consider core functionality of the product as well as plug-in /
add-on in options (example: rate them a 0, however note that the
options are available).
– Keep in mind portfolios due to future need.
– Support online documentation
– Include descriptors (common vocabulary)
– Look at design, delivery, and interface.
Open Source Learning Management Systems (OSLMS) Partnership Grant
Allegany · Anne Arundel · Calvert · Cecil · Dorchester · Frederick · Prince Georges · Washington · Worcester
Functionality Rubric | Development Sub-committee
Question Types
• Example 1:
Did the course package import properly?
□ Yes
□ No
Comments:
Open Source Learning Management Systems (OSLMS) Partnership Grant
Allegany · Anne Arundel · Calvert · Cecil · Dorchester · Frederick · Prince Georges · Washington · Worcester
Functionality Rubric | Development Sub-committee
Question Types
• Example 2:
Each function is scored on Ease of Use:
Function
Score (0-3)
Comments
Open Source Learning Management Systems (OSLMS) Partnership Grant
Allegany · Anne Arundel · Calvert · Cecil · Dorchester · Frederick · Prince Georges · Washington · Worcester
Functionality Rubric | Development Sub-committee
Examples
• Idaho State University Report, 2006.
http://www.isu.edu/itrc/resources/LMS_F
ocus_Group_Report.pdf
• DePaul University, Chicago, IL
http://teachingcommons.depaul.edu/P_S
_C/LMS/review.html
• Wiki: Functionality Rubric Page
http://oslms.wikispaces.com/Functionality
+Rubric
Open Source Learning Management Systems (OSLMS) Partnership Grant
Allegany · Anne Arundel · Calvert · Cecil · Dorchester · Frederick · Prince Georges · Washington · Worcester
Functionality Rubric | Development Sub-committee
Next Meeting Goals