Building CSU System-Wide LMS Services using Moodle


Published on

This presentation from the US West Coast 2010 MoodleMoot discusses how the California State University is building coordinated LMS Services to reduce overall system costs and support unique campus needs. In particular, we discuss how the Moodle Learning Management System is being leveraged to reduce cost and increase resources provided for implementation, development, and user support.

This presentation discusses the CSU Learning Management Systems and Services Initiative. The project started in 2007 with an RFP to select LMS applications, and has recently begun to provide systemwide LMS services that are offered through local campuses, the CSU Chancellor’s Office, and external providers.

Currently there are 4 campuses with Moodle production systems, with 2 additional campuses in the process of converting to Moodle. This presentation will discuss the strategic plan for these services and progress to-date, including development of an ASP Moodle “safety net," a standardized SIS integration into Peoplesoft, a shared knowledge base, and a multi-campus Moodle Consortium.

Participants will be asked to discuss their own experiences deploying LMS services, how these models apply to their campus, and identify additional ways that Moodle development and deployment costs can be reduced through consortial arrangements.

Kathy Fernandes, CSU Office of the Chancellor
Andrew Roderick, San Francisco State University
John Whitmer, CSU Office of the Chancellor

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • CSUMB, Humboldt, SFSU, Maritime, Northridge, San Marcos, SonomaSLO, Fullerton
  • ATSC ATACCOLDITAC, LMS SynergyDATLMS FuturesMoodle Consortium
  • Building CSU System-Wide LMS Services using Moodle

    1. 1. Building CSU System-Wide LMS Services using Moodle<br />San Francisco State University<br />Andrew Roderick, Technology Development and Support Manager<br />CSU Chancellor’s Office<br />Kathy Fernandes, Director of System-Wide LMS Initiatives<br />John Whitmer, Associate Director of System-Wide LMS Initiatives<br />
    2. 2. PAST<br />Historical background of Moodle collaboration within the CSU system<br />
    3. 3. CSU Demographics<br />23 campuses<br />Approx. 433,000 FTE students<br />44,000 faculty and staff<br />We are the largest, the most diverse, & one of the most affordable university systems in the country<br />We play a vital role in the growth & development of California's communities and economy<br />
    4. 4. About California State University (CSU)<br /><ul><li>~75,000 courses per semester
    5. 5. ~40% had online components in 2009</li></li></ul><li>About California State University (CSU)<br /><ul><li>28+ server installations of 10 different versions of 4 different LMS platforms in 2009</li></ul>1.9.4<br />1.9.5<br />CE 4<br />CE 6.1<br />CE 6.2.3<br />Vista 8<br />Bb 7.2<br />Bb 7.3<br />Bb 8<br />Bb 9<br />
    6. 6. Early adopter Moodle Campuses<br />Four campuses use Moodle as<br />the exclusive LMS:<br /><ul><li>San Francisco State - 2007
    7. 7. Humboldt State - 2007
    8. 8. CSU Monterey Bay - 2009
    9. 9. CSU Maritime - 2009</li></li></ul><li>San Francisco State University<br /><ul><li>1,500 faculty and 30,000 students
    10. 10. 2,400 courses
    11. 11. Branded as iLearn
    12. 12. Moodle1.9.9 in Fall
    13. 13. Customized gradebook, course archive, file system, custom integrations
    14. 14. Mature systems and code management processes</li></li></ul><li>Stages of CSU Moodle collaboration<br /><ul><li>Competitive
    15. 15. Cooperative
    16. 16. Collaborative</li></ul>CSU Moodle Coalition was the context for cooperation.<br />CSU LMSS is the step toward collaboration.<br />
    17. 17. Present<br />Overview of CSU System-wide Learning Mgmt Systems & Services<br />
    18. 18. CSU Campus LMS Usage (2010)<br />
    19. 19. Overview of System-wide Processes<br />Perform LMS RFI and RFP (2008-2009)<br />Define LMSS Strategy (2009-2010)<br />Implement Governance (2010-2011)<br />Create Collaborative Projects that Benefit Multiple Campuses (2010-)<br />
    20. 20. System-wide LMSS Strategy <br />LMS Futures Group (Provosts, CIOs, Faculty) prepared 4 documents (<br />LMS Critical Elements<br />External Scan of Market & Higher Ed Systems<br />CSU System-wide Recommendations<br />LMS Governance Recommendations<br />Organize stakeholders to implement recommendations, starting with Moodle<br />
    21. 21. System-wide LMS Governance<br />
    22. 22. Identified Project Areas for 2010<br />Governance implementation and revision<br />Common licensing (lms, integrations, etc.)<br />Common Moodle codebase (mixed hosting)<br />Integrations – library, MERLOT, web conferencing, lecture capture<br />Migration, training<br />Future: shared help desk / support<br />And other activities that governance identifies … <br />
    23. 23. CSU Moodle Collaborations<br />
    24. 24. Stages of Adoption/Interest<br />Mature<br />New Production<br />Pilot<br />LMS Assessment<br />Moodle-curious<br />
    25. 25. Moodle Common Interest Group (CIG) <br /><ul><li>Forming in Fall 2010
    26. 26. Informational/Community and Production/Deliverables based
    27. 27. Open Participation + Working Groups
    28. 28. Steered by Governance (S&PG)
    29. 29. Broad Stakeholders (IT, AT, ID, Developers, etc.)
    30. 30. Balance local campus needs w/ economies of scale, common development</li></li></ul><li>Community Building is like Watercolor<br />
    31. 31. It’s About Balance<br /><ul><li>Campus Needs vs. Central Opportunities
    32. 32. Vendor Hosted + Self-Hosted
    33. 33. Needs Based on Stage of Adoption
    34. 34. Differences in Stakeholder Perspectives
    35. 35. Differences in Campus Environments/Size
    36. 36. Differences in Resources and Compentencies</li></li></ul><li>Discovery<br />How do we work with each other?<br />How do we work with other initiatives?<br />How do we work with others (external institutions)?<br />How do we work with (core)?<br />How do we work with vendors?<br />
    37. 37. Common Code Base<br />End goal is stable, effective build running in a campus environment – this means interdisciplinary participation. <br />CSU Distribution centrally tested and managed<br />Locally tested and customized for environments<br />Scaled for performance across campus size<br />Agreed upon components, add-ons<br />More to come…<br />
    38. 38. CSU-wide Initiatives<br />Purpose-built for the CSU<br />Local Infrastructure Integrations<br />Accessible Technology Initiative<br />CSU Library Initiatives (Xerxes, etc.)<br />Merlot<br />Fresca<br />Digital Marketplace/Affordable Learning Solutions<br />
    39. 39. Models, Ideas<br />
    40. 40. Key Questions to Address<br />Common codebase process – change management framework, QA, requirements definition … in decentralized, opt-in environment <br />Readiness and participation “requirements” – in-kind or $$$? Recognize diverse existing investments/resources<br />Defining economic value and metrics – increase efficiency/VOI, not cash savings<br />Communication plan – addressing diverse stakeholders w/o attending every meeting <br />
    41. 41. Contact Information<br />SF State <br />Andrew Roderick ( Development Manager<br />Chancellor’s Office<br />Kathy Fernandes ( of System-Wide LMS Initiatives<br />John Whitmer ( Director of System-Wide LMS Initiatives<br />