Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.


Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply



Published on

Published in: Education, Technology

  • 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

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Evaluating and Deploying a Web Based Course Management System JQ Johnson Academic Education Coordinator University of Oregon jqj Presentation at Universität Regensburg 4 September 2000
  • 2. University of Oregon environment
    • Mid-sized (16000 students) research university
    • Excellent network infrastructure
    • Very small "distance education" component
    • Moderately large group of faculty who are "early adopters"
    • Slow adoption of web technology by mainstream faculty
  • 3. Timeline of UO Blackboard project
    • Need assessment (1996-1999): evaluated a variety of course management systems
    • Evaluation (spring 1999): trial courses using WebCT and Blackboard
    • Implementation (summer 1999-spring 2000): licensed Blackboard for pilot project
    • Production (summer 2000): Blackboard becomes standard library service
  • 4. The need
    • Increase use of web-based instruction while reducing cost
    • Introduce pedagogically sound uses of technology
    • Find software tools that will make it easy for typical faculty to integrate web-based instruction into their courses
    • Our primary goal: enhance face-to-face courses rather than support true distance ed
  • 5. What is a Course Management System?
    • Integrated environment offering wide variety of features for teaching
      • access control: only enrolled students may view course
      • easy web publishing of syllabus, lecture notes, etc.
      • asynchronous communication: announcements, threaded discussion
      • synchronous communication: chatroom, virtual whiteboard
      • online quizes and gradebook
      • collaborative workgroups
  • 6. Commercial Course Management Systems
    • Many vendors of commercial products. Market shakeout currently in progress
    • Current major products
      • Blackboard Courseinfo
      • WebCT
      • eCollege (also outsources management and development)
      • Convene
      • TopClass
      • etc.
  • 7. Related Products
    • Web publishing tools
      • Microsoft FrontPage, Adobe GoLive, Macromedia Dreamweaver, etc.
    • Courseware development tools
      • Authorware, Dreamweaver Coursebuilder, Click2Learn Toolbook, etc.
    • “ Learning Management Systems”
      • Click2Learn Ingenium, Docent Enterprise, KnowledgeSoft, etc.
    • Campus portal software
      • Campus Pipeline, GoCampus, Angel, etc. (cf. http://www. futureu .com/ vcomm / olx /products2review-portals.html )
  • 8. A Blackboard CourseSite
  • 9. Course Documents
  • 10. Lecture Notes
  • 11. Integrated discussion forum
  • 12. Online quizes
  • 13. Evaluation of Course Management Systems
    • Features
      • Several good comparisons/reviews, e.g.,
      • But features change with every new software release
    • Costs/resources required
      • License costs
      • Hardware costs
      • Personnel costs for management/support
      • Personnel costs for developing course content
  • 14. Evaluation (continued)
    • Ease of use
      • Best measured by direct experience
      • Most vendors offer “try before you buy”, e.g.,
    • Range of vendor-provided support services
      • Site hosting? Course development? Campus integration? 24x7 end user support?
    • Ease of integration into local environment
      • Link to registration/student information system
      • Integration with existing e-mail system
    • Vendor stability
  • 15. Evaluation – University of Oregon experience
    • Trial courses (spring 1999) using WebCT (locally hosted) and Blackboard (using
    • Both were successful, but faculty preferred Blackboard
    • Chose Blackboard for pilot project, beginning summer 1999
    • Ongoing evaluation is also looking at eCollege and Campus Pipeline
  • 16. Implementation at University of Oregon -- costs
    • License for Blackboard CourseInfo ($5,000/year)
    • Local server, managed by library: Pentium III/400MHz/ 256MB/15GB/Linux (total hardware cost, about $5,000)
    • Support personnel
      • 10 hrs/week administrator
      • 4 hrs/week tech support
      • 15 hrs/week (or more?) Student staff providing support for students (forgotten passwords, etc.)
    Total 1-year cost: approximately $40,000
  • 17. Implementation: developing course materials
    • Faculty develop their own materials
    • Faculty Instructional Training Center provides guidance and resources, but not labor
    • Some departments assign graduate student teaching assistants to Blackboard support and development
    • Some faculty are experimenting with publisher’s textbook supplements in Blackboard format
  • 18. Implementation: problems
    • Student account creation
      • Self-authorization was too complex for students
      • Integration with university Student Information System (SCT Banner) is ad hoc
      • When creating accounts for students, need a reliable mechanism for distributing passwords
    • Web browser compatibility
      • Blackboard is not well-tested on Macintosh
      • Some portions of Blackboard require Java and current-generation browser
  • 19. Implementation: more problems
    • Security and privacy issues
      • Instructors have access to more student data
      • Blackboard internal implementation not designed for security, though no known problems exist
    • Rapid change in software base
      • We ran Blackboard version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0 (5.0 released August 2000)
      • Updates often included major changes (not always improvements) in user interface
  • 20. Implementation: marketing to faculty
    • Advertising was mostly word of mouth during pilot project
    • Marketing focused on large undergraduate courses
    • We used vendor provided documentation, CD-ROM based tutorial, and some locally written documentation
    • We offered several workshops (2 hrs. to 3 days), usually combining Blackboard with more general discussion of teaching methods
  • 21. Results to date: a very popular tool
    • “ I think it's a real tribute to the design of Blackboard that I was up and running after a four hour workshop. I've been impressed from the get-go.”
    • Elizabeth Hoffman Instructor Arts & Administration
  • 22. Results to date: examples
    • Courses in a wide range of disciplines:
      • Art and Gender
      • Dramatic Screenwriting
      • Introduction to Native American Literature
      • Introductory Psychology
      • Internet Information and Culture
      • Organic Chemistry
      • etc. (more than 100 courses total)
    • Adopters tend to cluster in particular departments
  • 23. The Future (next 12 months)
    • Pilot project has become an official library service, available to any faculty member
    • We expect continued growth in usage, particularly by smaller courses
    • Server upgrade planned for September (2x700MHz PIII/512MB/30GB/Linux)
    • We are investigating campus portal software
      •  Blackboard Tier 3,  Campus Pipeline
    • We expect that the commercial market will change greatly in next year
  • 24. For more information
    • University of Oregon Blackboard site: http://blackboard.uoregon. edu
    • UO Faculty Instructional Technology Training Center:
    • This presentation: http:// darkwing . uoregon . edu / ~ jqj /presentations/regensburg00. ppt
    • JQ Johnson: [email_address]