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.

LMS evaluation and rationale for moving to Moodle in 2011

2,219 views

Published on

Dr Enrico (Ric) Canale, Associate Director for Flexible Teaching & Learning, Curriculum,
Teaching & Learning Centre La Trobe University
La Trobe recently completed an evaluation of Blackboard Learn 9.1 and Moodle 1.9.7 that took into account a number of different LMS perspectives. Ric will cover the different evaluation perspectives in terms of the main issues that are common to all institutions and summarise the specific findings as they apply in the La Trobe context by way of example. The La Trobe LMS evaluation included:
System functions and features, assessed as software capabilities, Usability or ease of use, Accessibility, assessed by Vision Australia, Content migration, assessed in the interest of minimising staff time on migration of existing LMS subjects, Comparative costs, including in-house and externally hosted options for both Blackboard and Moodle, Technical fit with La Trobe IT infrastructure and future directions, Vendor responsiveness and support levels, including evidence of their capacity to support the Design for Learning Project (or replace DFL with your institution’s major T&L strategy). These and other considerations supporting La Trobe’s rationale for adopting Moodle in 2011 will be discussed.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

LMS evaluation and rationale for moving to Moodle in 2011

  1. 1. A Recent LMS Evaluation<br />The Task<br />The Evaluation<br />The Rationale for Moodle<br />25 June 2010<br />Slide 1 of 5<br />
  2. 2. The Task<br />Evaluate Blackboard Learn and Moodle to determine which has the best fit with La Trobe’s LMS needs.<br />Requirement to meet Semester 1, 2011 deadline for new LMS.<br />25 June 2010<br />Slide 2 of 5<br />
  3. 3. The Evaluation<br />Vendor briefing documents<br />Vendor presentations<br />Vendor meetings<br />Vendor written submissions<br />Staff usability testing<br />Student usability testing<br />Accessibility testing<br />Functional criteria<br />Content migration<br />Vendor responsiveness<br />25 June 2010<br />Slide 3 of 5<br />
  4. 4. Key results of the Evaluation<br />Blackboard 9.1 marginally ahead on functionality, ease of use (staff), and accessibility, with high scores for both LMS.<br />Wider differences observed in terms of cost structures, flexibility and vendor responsiveness.<br />25 June 2010<br />Slide 4 of 5<br />
  5. 5. LTU’s Rationale for Moodle<br />Structural<br />Licence cost<br />Other costs, forex<br />Vendor lock-in<br />Flexibility vs. risk<br />25 June 2010<br /><ul><li>Contextual
  6. 6. Design for Learning Project
  7. 7. Staff opportunity cost vs. existing skills (technical fit)
  8. 8. Content migration
  9. 9. Time to implement</li></ul>Slide 5 of 5<br />

×