L21 Steering Committee Minutes

2/26/2013

Attendees: Jennifer Taxman, Josh Kim, Bob Gross, Steve Lubrano, Ehud Benor, Karen Gocsik, Jimmy Wu, Steve Swayne, Steve McAllister, Inge-Lise Ameer, Adwiteeya Misra, Rachel Sarnoff, Tom Luxon, Cathy Cramer, Ellen Waite-Franzen, Barbara Knauff, Susan Zaslaw, Pat Coogan (minutes)

Update of recent project and evaluation activities (Barbara Knauff)

Creation of pilot environments: Canvas and Blackboard pilot environments are in place; D2L lagging behind in implementing central authentication. D2L front line staff been very responsive and authentication-related delays have been out of their hands.

Vendor demo feedback: Blackboard is improved but the interface is not radically changed. Very positive feedback on Canvas - clean, modern, usability, user friendly. D2L is feature rich, a little better than BB, but not radically different.

Department visits: The primary message received from faculty is "don't move to something unless it's radically different." There is concern about relearning an LMS and migrating content to a new LMS.

Mini-course feedback (Tuck and Kresge Library): Developers were very positive about working in Canvas; there was considerable frustration with D2L both from a design and technical standpoint. Overall ratings for Blackboard and D2L were comparable. We will gather feedback from students once the courses are complete.

Proposal to limit evaluation to BB and Canvas (Barbara Knauff)

Based on the information gathered thus far, the project team proposed limiting the evaluation to Blackboard and Canvas, removing D2L from further consideration. It would be in Dartmouth’s best interest to focus our project resources going forward on the two solutions we believe to be the most viable options for our institution.

Discussion

What would focusing on two systems entail and how will this affect the evaluation process?

Barbara explained that looking at two systems provides the opportunity for a more in depth evaluation in the sandboxes and pilot courses. We can allocate resources more efficiently to take a closer look at Canvas and Blackboard. It might also change our approach to the pilot courses. It changes the question from comparing three different systems to "do we stay the course or do we move to something else?"

Josh Kim supported the proposal noting that the discussion should be about change, risk, and staying more current with our LMS. Any of the alternatives involve change. A decision to continue with Blackboard would involve migrating to a new version. An institutional commitment to allocate greater staff and administrative resources would be needed to keep current and manage in this type of dynamic environment. We need to consider not just product functionalities but how we interact with the companies.

Other points raised:

· In removing D2L from consideration we are placing a lot of faith that Canvas will survive serious testing.

· Others supported the wisdom of the testers and expressed the need to narrow down the options, make the decision and take process further.

· Conversations with other institutions that have made this change will provide important information. What issues came up and how were they resolved? Barbara noted that reference checks and conversations with peer institutions will be part of the process moving forward.

· What feedback have we received from students? Barbara explained that most student feedback will come from their experiences in the pilot courses. A student steering committee member noted that she participated in the Kresge mini course and found Blackboard easier to navigate than Canvas.

Steve Lubrano asked for a vote on the proposal. Steve Swayne made the motion to drop D2L and limit the evaluation to Blackboard and Canvas.

Barbara reported that two committee members who were not able to attend the meeting expressed their support for the proposal to focus on Blackboard and Canvas.

Yes: 13

No: 1

Structuring spring term course pilots (Barbara Knauff)

Barbara explained how prospective faculty were identified for spring pilot courses. Blackboard tool usage data was analyzed to determine which faculty often use engagement and collaborative tools in their courses. Other criteria were course size and availability to teach in spring term. While some of the smaller writing courses would be part of the pilot, larger classes needed to be included to test how well the LMS served these classes.

A variety of approaches were suggested for structuring the spring term pilot course testing:

· Employ both systems in a single course. Have faculty teach a course in one system but build in the other to compare set up process.

· Establish some criteria re: robustness of use, including features to allow a better comparison.

· Consider approaching faculty who aren't using many tools but might be interested in trying new features when developing a course in a different system. Test how content is accessed and used on mobile.

· Ask faculty teaching two courses to teach one in each system.

· Select similar type courses.

The decision was made to allocate resources equally across the two systems: pilot three courses in Canvas and three in Blackboard.

The committee discussed the role and level of involvement of the instructional designers in the pilot courses. It was agreed that in order for this to be representative of the process in the future that IDs would meet with faculty, provide counsel and advice, and faculty would implement recommendations in the courses. Dartmouth needs to increase the instructional designer resources available to the faculty. Ellen Waite-Franzen noted that additional resources have been factored into the budget for Phase 3.

Other suggestions:

· We should devote more resources to polling our peers.

· Send representatives to Instructure and Blackboard user conferences.

· Add mobile to the evaluation.

· Pull from Tuck faculty for communications/decision making resources.