Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

2010 Edu tools


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

2010 Edu tools

  1. 1. EduTools 2.0EduTools 2.0
  2. 2. EduTools 1.0 • Ground-breaking comparison tool • Used for RFP generation • Provider content vetted by WCET • Resource-intensive to maintain
  3. 3. Genesis: WCET LMS CIG
  4. 4. Revision Drivers • Ubiquitous • Converging feature sets • Handle administrivia • Student expectations • Focus on learning not learner management • Constant change
  5. 5. Driving Questions • Semi-permeable borders – Content – Non-students • Personal learning environments – Content – Non-students • Small pieces, loosely joined
  6. 6. EduTools Survey 1. Portal 2. Communication 3. Tests 4. Grades 5. Reports 6. Interoperability 7. Accessibility 8. Community 9. Administration 10.Technical 11.Price
  7. 7. LMS “Essential” Questions Portal How enables students to connect with other enrolled students outside of the course? Community How used to make content available to users outside the institution? Communication How does the LMS allow faculty to manage small groups within courses. How can programmers develop integrated services (e.g. single sign-on for tutoring) Assessment What data is available to allow institutions to student progress on system-wide basis? Grading Describe how a faculty member imports and exports grades from your LMS. Data How can institutions use the LMS to monitor faculty participation in courses on a system-wide basis? Accessibility Compliance with W3C Content Accessibility? How faculty upload content files to a single location for multiple sections of same course? Administration Describe the data feeds between any SIS integration partners to your LMS. Technical Describe any LMS migrations which have required no post-migration manual clean-up. Pricing Describe the TCO price for: • small institution, 2,000 students, 100 staff/faculty members, single-CPU application server. • medium-sized campus, 12,000 students, 500 staff/faculty, four-CPU application server.
  8. 8. EduTools Data • LMS Filters – Type • Proprietary vs. Open Source – Location • Local vs. Hosted
  9. 9. LMS RespondentsProduct Filter Agilix BrainHoney Commercial Hosted (SaaS) CampusCruiser Commercial Hosted (SaaS) Instructure Canvas Commercial Hosted (SaaS) Edvance 360 Commercial Hosted (SaaS) Pearson eCollege Commercial Hosted (Saas) Blackboard Learn Commercial Hosted or Unhosted Desire2 Learn Commercial Hosted or Unhosted ATutor Open Source .LRN Open Source LON-CAPA Open Source + Hosting Moodle Open Source Sakai Open Source MoodleRooms Joule Open Source Hosting Others available but did not participate in survey
  10. 10. Authentication “Essential” Questions Functionality • What designed to do and how does it do it? • Evidence the solution provides reliable authentication? • User experience of faculty members and of students? • Reports available to admin, staff, faculty? • How student privacy assured? Pricing • Pricing model? Support • Skill sets needed to manage the product? • Training and documentation provided? • How user support provided? Technology • Hardware purchases or software downloads required of users? • Can campus systems (e.g. LMS, SIS) be integrated? • Status of partnership with any LMS providers?
  11. 11. EduTools Data • Authentication Filter: Technology – Biometric – Challenge-Response – Monitoring
  12. 12. Authentication RespondentsProduct Filter Axciom Identify-X Challenge Questions BioMetric Signature ID Biometrics Trustable Passwords by iMagic Software Biometrics Voice Verified by CSIdentity Biometrics Digital Proctor Monitoring WebAssessor & Online Proctoring by Kryterion Monitoring ProctorU Monitoring Securexam by Software Secure Monitoring
  13. 13. EduTools Mockup
  14. 14. Direction • Annual updates • Additional resources • Vendor input • Community involvement – Vetting – Sharing
  15. 15. Future Ed U Tools 2.0 coming soon
  16. 16. End
  17. 17. RFP
  18. 18. PLE
  19. 19. Survey Questions
  20. 20. Communications Steps  Communicators Strategic Planning Decision Procure/ Upgrade RFP and Vendor Evaluation Vendor Selection Executive/ Steering Committee initiate overall direction, change frequency set direction for procurement, purchasing RFP shepherding oversee RFP, Legal, other issues Information Technology provide guidance on IT infrastructure capabilities, recommend window for acquisition and integration security & accessibility evaluation hardware decisions and provisioning discussions Academic Units provide guidance on current/future usage recommend window for acquisition develop evaluation criteria; vendor research/reviews identify evangelists to begin the change process Instructional Design and Support provide guidance on future needs propose evaluation criteria, transition strategies conduct evaluation by instructional designers develop transition schedule Marketing and communication provide guidance on public perceptions get direction from Academic Units and IT sketch communications plan/message consistency provide communications plan to stakeholders Faculty and Faculty Senates provide feedback on current limitations propose evaluation criteria participate in evaluation prepare for change Students or Student Senate Organizations provide feedback on current limitations (users) propose evaluation criteria participate in evaluation prepare for change Enrollment Mgt/ Registrar provide feedback on current limitations propose evaluation criteria participate in evaluation revise schedule and text descriptions Governing Bodies provide direction for shared service needs collaborate with Executive Committee on issues participate in evaluation, determine community Vendor none provide general info: RFI helps frame RFP provide specific info in response to RFP provide demonstrations, references and test a/c’s