COURSE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Mt. San Jacinto College
November 17, 2015
A report prepared by the Online Technologies Subcommittee, a
subcommittee of the Educational Technology Committee
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Educational Technology Committee designated one of its subcommittees, the
Online Technologies Subcommittee, to conduct an evaluation of two course
management systems and to provide a recommendation as to whether MSJC should
continue to license the Blackboard Learn CMS or opt to switch to Instructure’s
Canvas CMS. The two CMS’s were selected for the review process based upon their
current standing as leading CMS providers in the California Community College
System. MSJC had licensed versions of the Blackboard CMS since 2002 and with the
adoption of Canvas by the Online Education Initiative as the common course
management system for online courses to be offered through the OEI, the ETC was
ready to determine whether a change in their CMS was warranted.
Evaluations of Blackboard and its upcoming Blackboard Ultra product were
evaluated, as was the newest version of Instructure’s Canvas CMS.
By an overwhelming majority, 19 votes for Canvas and one vote for Blackboard, the
members of the Online Technologies Subcommittee recommend that MSJC adopt
Instructure’s Canvas as the course management system for MSJC.
The review that follows identifies the process undertaken by the Online
Technologies Subcommittee to identify their recommendation to the ETC.
2
INTRODUCTION
With the adoption of Instructure’s Canvas as the common course management
system by the Online Education Initiative (OEI) and the subsequent announcement
by the OEI granting access to Canvas for no cost to California Community College’s
through the 2018-2019 academic year, the Educational Technology Committee
tasked the Online Technologies Subcommittee to evaluate Canvas to determine
whether it would be a suitable replacement for Blackboard Learn that MSJC was
currently licensing as its course management system. MSJC has been using different
versions of the Blackboard CMS exclusively since it began offering online courses in
the spring of 2001. Blackboard was initially available via the California Virtual
Campus and was hosted by Cerro Coso College. Because of expansion of its online
course offerings, MSJC opted to host their online courses locally on a course
management system selected by MSJC faculty and administrators in 2001. Access to
Blackboard, Web CT and eCollege were provided to MSJC faculty and administrators
during the summer of 2002. Based upon the recommendation of the committee
evaluating the three course management systems, it was recommended that MSJC
adopt Blackboard as its CMS. In 2002, MSJC purchased a license to install
Blackboard locally and licensed Blackboard Enterprise in 2004. In 2004,
Blackboard was integrated with MSJC’s student information system, Colleague, to
allow all MSJC students’ access to online resources accessible via the Blackboard
CMS.
Because of its long history with Blackboard, the ETC indicated that a replacement
CMS would need to be as robust and capable as Blackboard to merit a switch.
REVIEW PROCESS
Eleven members of the ETC were joined by thirteen members of the MSJC faculty to
review Canvas and Blackboard Learn Ultra. A rubric was developed by the
subcommittee to evaluate the two products. Blackboard had been touting
Blackboard Learn Ultra as its successor to Blackboard Learn, the current CMS
licensed by MSJC. This created significant confusion, however, as committee
members were unsure whether they were evaluating the current version of
Blackboard or the proposed future of version of Blackboard.
3
The following were members who participated in the evaluation and
recommendation process.
ETC’s ONLINE TECHNOLOGIES SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS
Nick Abbondanza, Sr. Program Analyst, Information Technology
Jason Bader, Graphic Arts
Taylor Baldwin, Math
Ron Bowman, Accounting
Shauni Calhoun, Biology
Michael Caputo, Engineering
Angela Feeler, Nursing
Rosaleen Gibbons, Chemistry
Kelly Granche, Nutrition
Estella Gutierrez-Zamano, English
Belinda Heiden Scott, Business
Dewey Heinsma, Economics
Del Helms, Distance Education Coordinator
Andreea Mardichian, Math
Roy Mason, Biology
Luis Mondragon, Math
Micah Orloff – Dean of Academic Computing, Technology and Distance Learning
Shezwae Powell, Theatre Arts
Amrik Randhawa, Distance Education Network Coordinator, Instructional
Technology Support
Bahram Sherkat, Math
Tamara Smith, Social Sciences
Lauren Springer, English
Suzanne Uhl, Communications
Brenee Wright, English
4
BACKGROUND
In 2014 the Online Education Initiative (OEI) spearheaded an initiative to gather
information about course management systems with the intent of selecting a
Common Course Management System (CCMS) for online courses to be offered
through a statewide ‘Exchange’. In the Winter of 2015 pilot college members of the
OEI gathered together in Sacramento to evaluate presentations from three finalists
who met the criteria set in the OEI’s Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The three
CMS providers had been selected to present their respective Course Management
Systems based upon a nearly year long process. Three providers of course
management systems and services were selected to present at the three day event in
Sacramento.
After the three day process where each CMS provider demonstrated their products,
provided information regarding their system architecture, outlined a future
roadmap for their companies and handled questions from the audience, the nearly
50 voting members from pilot colleges who were in attendance, in near unanimity,
selected Canvas as the CCMS for OEI.
In the following weeks the OEI management team negotiated a contract with Canvas
and it was announced this summer that California Community Colleges (CCC) could
gain access to Canvas through a license agreement that would allow each institution
within the CCC system to have full access to Canvas with no licensing fees through
the 2018-2019 academic year. The costs for licensing would be offset by the money
awarded to OEI when OEI was established.
As a pilot college, MSJC had four representatives at the CCMS selection process. The
recommendation of the CCMS Committee was made public after the contract
negotiations were completed.
In September of 2015, the ETC tasked the Online Technologies Subcommittee, a
subcommittee of the ETC, to evaluate the efficacy of switching from its legacy CMS
(Blackboard) system to the Canvas CMS. Only Blackboard and Canvas were
considered by the Online Technologies Subcommittee as the OEI had undertaken a
nearly year long vetting process that yielded three CMS providers to present in
Sacramento. Only two of the three CMS providers were given consideration after
5
the presentations in Sacramento, as they were the only two CMS providers who
received votes from the CCMS committee.
After the selection of Canvas as the CCMS for OEI, the OEI published their
recommendation that each individual college go through their shared governance
committee process at their individual institutions to evaluate whether a change in
their local CMS would be warranted
(https://ccconlineed.instructure.com/courses/90/pages/resources-to-supportyour-colleges-upgrade-to-canvas).
The Online Technologies Subcommittee under the direction of the ETC solicited the
Academic Senate at MSJC on September 22, 2015 for faculty representation outside
of ETC to join the Online Technologies Subcommittee as the Online Technologies
Subcommittee lacked representation from several departments. The
recommendation was for targeted areas in history/political science,
psychology/sociology, communication/English, CTE (more than one and up to
three) and math/science.
With a desire to be inclusive of multiple constituent groups, the Online Technologies
Subcommittee also solicited student representation for the CMS evaluation process
as well as administrative and Information Technology personnel.
A call from the Academic Senate yielded thirteen faculty members including two
faculty members who were directly involved in teaching OEI Exchange courses. The
Online Technologies Subcommittee was comprised of 24 members. There were no
students on the subcommittee although students were solicited for participation via
the MSJC Student Governance Association.
An initial meeting of the Online Technologies Subcommittee was held on September
29th. A calendar of events was shared with the committee members (see Appendix
A). Additionally, a course management system evaluation rubric was created and
accepted as an informal way to collect data regarding the functionalities of
Blackboard and Canvas.
(https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1P7OnFVWT6nb2QYp6x8meciWjpjgOEZ8QFFm
v7RgxYlE/edit). It was also communicated during the initial meeting that the
subcommittee would be making a recommendation to the ETC which would be
6
forwarded as a recommendation to the Academic Senate (AS) who would likely
support the recommendation of the ETC and the recommendation from the AS
would move forward to College Council where it would then be moved to the Board
of Trustees for their approval.
THE PROCESS
An online course was created within Blackboard for all members of the
subcommittee to allow streamlined communications, sharing of documents and to
host discussions regarding the evaluation and recommendation process.
Blackboard was scheduled for their presentation on October 16th and Canvas was
scheduled for their presentation on October 23rd. Since MSJC had licensed
Blackboard for over a decade and many members of the committee were very
familiar with the Blackboard Learn CMS, it was decided that Blackboard would
demo their Blackboard Learn Ultra CMS that is still in development.
The demonstrations were conducted using virtual meeting spaces. Blackboard
utilized their yet to be released Bb Collaborate Ultra product for their
demonstration. Canvas utilized the Clearslide virtual meeting tool for their
presentation. Both meetings were accessible via linked classrooms on both the SJC
and MVC campuses as well as via the Internet for subcommittee members who
could not attend the presentations on either campus. Each company was provided
one hour and thirty minutes for their presentations. Additionally, sandboxes were
created for all subcommittee members for a one-week time period. The sandboxes
were made available for a one week evaluation period. The sandboxes allowed
committee members to access the two CMS’s from instructor and student
perspectives while testing many of the CMS’s features. Subcommittee members had
from October 16th to October 22nd to test the features of Blackboard Learn Ultra and
from October 23rd to October 29th to test the features of Canvas. The subcommittee
members were encouraged to compare the CMS products to the list of features
developed by the subcommittee rather than comparing the products to each other.
There was much confusion regarding the Bb Learn Ultra sandbox evaluation as
many features were not available as the Bb Learn Ultra product is still under the
Technical Preview stage of development. Many subcommittee members questioned
7
whether the rubric for evaluation should be used for Bb Learn 9.1, for Bb Learn
Ultra or both. It was recommended that the subcommittee members evaluate both
Bb Learn as well as Bb Learn Ultra assuming the features of Bb Learn 9.1 would
soon be integrated into Bb Learn Ultra.
After the two presentations and sandbox experiences with each CMS, the Online
Technologies Subcommittee reconvened on November 3, 2015 to discuss their
experiences with the two CMS products. Many of the instructors were pleased by
the ease of use of Canvas, but initially expressed concerns over whether adopting a
new CMS would be worth the time and effort required of faculty members to learn a
new system. The two committee members, Suzanne Uhl and Tamara Smith, who
were a part of the OEI Pilot Program during the Fall of 2015, and had first-hand
experience using Canvas in an online class setting, shared their experiences with the
committee members and exuberantly endorsed Canvas as being easy to learn and
use while providing robust features. They also shared that their students seemed to
prefer Canvas to Blackboard because of its ease of use. Dr. Uhl and Mrs. Smith also
indicated that there were a very small percentage of students who expressed
concern with needing to learn how to navigate a different CMS to complete their
online coursework, but their students overwhelmingly endorsed Canvas as a quality
CMS. Please see Appendix B for comments about the recommendation to adopt
Canvas as the CMS for MSJC.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the Online Technologies Subcommittee review of Blackboard and
Canvas, the support for Canvas by the Online Education Initiative, it is
recommended that MSJC adopt Canvas as its course management system. It is also
recommended that the adoption occur over the fifteen month time period
recommended by OEI
(https://ccconlineed.instructure.com/courses/90/pages/implementation-guide).
The recommendation includes the continuance of licensing Blackboard through the
2016-2017 academic year. Although this will cut into the cost savings associated
with adopting Canvas, it will allow for a transitional period where courses can be
migrated from Blackboard to Canvas; adjustments to recently migrated course can
8
be made to ensure quality course design; courses migrated from Blackboard to
Canvas can undergo a rigorous evaluation process using the OEI Course Design
Rubric (https://sites.google.com/site/coursedesignrubricoeifinal/); and MSJC can
provide staff with the necessary professional development activities to assist them
with the transition process.
9
Appendix A - CMS Review Process
T 9/22
Call for subcommittee participants from ETC
T 9/29
Distribute timeline for process and develop rubric for evaluation
(Linked Meeting from 1:30 – 3:00pm Room 200 SJC and Room 851 MVC)
W 9/30
CMS discussion shell created and participants uploaded
Call for student participants
T 10/6
Academic Senate Presentation: Explain charge and call for faculty participants
F 10/16
(MVC)
*Vendor Demo 1: Blackboard Ultra from 9:30-11am Rooms 200 (SJC) and 851
F 10/16
Blackboard Ultra sandboxes created and evaluation period begins
Th 10/22
Bb Ultra evaluation period ends
F 10/23
*Vendor Demo 2: Canvas 9:30-11am Rooms 205 (SJC) and 805 (MVC)
F 10/23
Canvas sandboxes created and evaluation period begins
Th 10/29
Canvas evaluation period ends
T 11/3
Report sandbox experiences and share rubrics
Meeting from 1:00-3:00pm Rooms 200 (SJC) and 355B (MVC)
W 11/4
Voting opens
T 11/10
Voting closes
T 11/17
Recommendation to Educational Technology Committee and Academic Senate
10
APPENDIX B
WHAT EVALUATORS HAD TO SAY ABOUT WHY THEY VOTED FOR CANVAS
“I think the fact that 3 sections have been conducted in Canvas, through OEI, with
overwhelming student support is important. While 3 classes is NOT [a]lot, the fact
that students have stated they found Canvas to be much more intuitive and easier
shouldn't be overlooked.”
“I have seen the Mobile Application for a Canvas course and was very impressed
I have seen Speed Grader in Canvas with an MSJC course and was sold that it will
save faculty time with grading.”
“Canvas appears to be more intuitive to student users; therefore, leading to stronger
online student success and retention.”
“Canvas allows MSJC to piggy-back onto OEI student support features (online
tutoring, online student readiness, etc.) at no direct cost to MSJC.”
“Mobile Application is superior to BB and our students are more likely to have a
mobile device than a computer!”
“The Switch allows MSJC to continue within the EXCHANGE which is important
when the economy takes another inevitable dump. This supports TIME TO
COMPLETION for students though they may be served at another institution.”
“LESS CLICKING... in every feature of Canvas when compared to BB. SAVES us time
so we may focus on teaching and interacting with students rather than management
of technology.”
“Speed grader is awesome....faster, more efficient to give feedback and hit those
effective contact hours.”
“Closed captioning options within the system rather than going out of system into
[YouTube] for video lectures.”
“Grade book columns with percentiles for categories so that students may see how
they are performing in specific areas of the courses. For example, are you strong in
discussions but weak in quizzes or essays. It supports self-advocacy and
accountability for students.”
11
“What Do I need On This Assignment feature... helps students manage their own
grades and encourages success when they can see what is needed to pass or to earn
the grade they desire.”
“Consistency for students within our MSJC courses and in preparation of transfer to
other colleges already using the system. Many local high schools use Canvas as
well.”
“Since the M[A]JORITY of our courses are taught by Part Time faculty, if they have
Canvas at other institutions, the system simplifies their access to all of their courses
(and this benefits students too attending more than one school). They don't need to
access three different CMSs. Saves them time to focus on teaching and interaction!”
“Students control their names and identity in the course...supports our Transgender
students!!!!”
“Drag and drop of files from your desktop right into the course. So easy and without
the download wait time in BB!”
12