Why use a CMS?

Is it possible to conduct an effective online program without a centrally administered course management system? I’m not talking about a class or two here and there. Nor am I talking about web enhanced courses. Without question, the web-savvy instructor would do well to put together a highly focused class comprised of online tools that fit the class. And web enhanced courses can rely on the face-to-face portion of classroom for “course management” activities.

This question has been put to me because the continuing cost a centralized course management system is increasingly more than our strained budgets can afford. At UMW, approximately 10% of classes make very extensive use of the CMS (we currently use Blackboard). Another 40% or so make moderate to occasional use of Blackboard. Somewhere near half of our classes make no use of Blackboard. So, the question is, should UMW purchase a costly software service for the benefit of only half of her classes?

Of course, another argument might be should we encourage more extensive use of Blackboard so as to better exploit a current operational cost. So I am writing this page to organize my own thoughts.

Functions of a Centrally Administered Course Management System

Issue	Easy Web Alternative?
Access publisher course cartridges	No, but some textbooks have significant web assets.
Access to SCORM compliant third party tools	No
Ad-hoc student groups	Yes, via collaborative websites such as Google Docs. Security?
Adaptive Release of Content	Not without instructor intervention.
Adaptive Release of Quizzes	Not without instructor intervention.
Assignment submissions	Via email attachment. Security of email attachments?
Automatic grading of objective test questions	Yes, third party sites. Security?
Authenticated private access	Yes, via sites like Ning.
Central administration	No
Central repository of course content	No
Class calendar and/or due date reminders	Yes, Calendaring sites.
Combined classes	No
Common cartridge compliance	No
Common interface (both for faculty and students)	No
Conditional release of tests	Yes, third party sites. Security?
Confidentiality of student work	Iffy
Copy course materials between courses.	No
Course archives (entire course in one zip file)	No
Cross-listed classes	No
Early warning monitoring for low achieving students	No
Ease of course transitions during product upgrades.	No
Efficiencies of scale	No
Email via class roster	Maybe?
End user operating system agnostic (added 12/9/09)	Maybe?
Fair Use (as opposed to open posting of copyrighted material)	Iffy
Familiar environment for techno-phobes	No
FERPA	Iffy
Immediate feedback on quizzes	Maybe?
Integrated backup processes	Maybe?
Integrated system of tools in common interface	No
Known problem set versus unknown problem set	No
Learning outcomes reporting (institutional effectiveness)	No
Limited support staff for faculty assistance mitigated by common toolset	No
Mechanisms to provide feedback	Yes
Multiple attempts  for tests	Maybe?
Multiple question types for objective testing	Yes, third party sites. Security?
Optional features – example, ePortfolio	Yes, but not integrated
Peer rating of discussions	Maybe?
Provides a core set of tools that are commonly used	No
Quality control of upgrades	Maybe?
Random ordering during testing	Yes, third party sites.
Reusable learning objects	No
Review test results	Yes
Rights management by role	No
SCORM compliance	Maybe?
Security	Iffy
Self progress monitoring	No
Single Sign On to affiliated resources (library, etc.)	No
SIS – Course Roster Integration	No
Stability of CMS vendor	No
Standardization important for third party vendors	Maybe
Student access to grades/progress	Maybe
Support for multiple browsers (added 12/9/09)	Maybe?
Technical support	No
Tests from large question pools.	Yes
Third party providers EULAs	Varies
Third Party providers’ copyright policies	Varies
Third Party providers’ data security	Varies
Threaded discussions	Yes
Time spent on lesson planning/content preparation/ teaching rather than medium Varies	Varies
User Community	Varies

References:

Bergeron, Brown, Brusca, Caiden, Davis, Dyer, Gibson, Hess, Hurst, Lambert, Lowenthal, Lowery, Lynch, Parker, St.Clair, Wilson, Zvacek. (10/31/09 – 11/4/09). Blackboard vs a Web Server,  BLKBRD-L at ASU.EDU. http://is.asu.edu/instruction/faq/usingBLKBRD-L.html.

Depaul Instructional Technology Development. 75 Reasons to Use Blackboard, http://www.itd.depaul.edu/website/documentation/75ReasonstoUseBlackboard.pdf

Sedans vs. Zombies

(Or, How I Debated Jim Groom and Lived to Tell About It.)

I happen, through happy circumstance, to work at the same university (University of Mary Washington) as Jim Groom – Blogger, Reverend, Zombie Hunter, EduPunker. As all who follow Jim know, he is an ardent proponent using innovative technology in teaching and learning – full of zeal, but not a zealot.  Some closely associate him with WordPress Multi-User blogs, which he has fostered to near perfection here at umwblogs.org. But he is SO much deeper than that.

Read more

SharePoint LMS Feature List

Looking for a full explanation of Microsoft SharePoint Learning Management System?  The SharePointLMS.com site (third party consulting company, ElearningForce, Inc. – no endorsement intended) contains a nice overview of SharePoint LMS features and a pdf document with more details.

SharePoint LMS at Queens University

An interesting case study is available on the Microsoft site which details the adoption by Queens University (Charlotte, North Carolina) of SharePoint Learning Kit as an enterprise LMS. Looking to avoid the major expense of thier previous LMS (Blackboard), Queens adopted SharePoint both as an enterprise network framework and as an LMS. Like UMW, Queens had been a Novell installation.

A few years earlier, Queens had traded its Novell directory for the Active Directory® service, its Novell-based file and print servers for servers based on the Windows Server® 2003 operating system, and its open-source e-mail messaging system for Microsoft® Exchange Server 2003.

Dr. Williima Clyde, Queens VP of Academic Affairs, explains his pardigm shift by stating:

Many of the LMS solutions began as kernels written by graduate students back in the 1990s. They’ve been expanded by different people at different times using different code, resulting in products that were not strategically planned or designed to work well together.

Good point. Microsoft does have enterprise level solutions for authentication, document management and collaboration, meeting scheduling, email, calendaring, live conferencing, etc.  Of course, adopting an LMS not specifically designed for the support of distributed learning does give pause to an old dog like me. There do seem to be definite advantages and SharePoint Learning Kit has improved recently to include features such as a grade book utility which moves it more into the realm of an actual LMS.

Being an Iconoclast is such a burden – due diligence and all.

SharePoint LMS at Washington State

NIls Peterson at UWS comments on the Washington State move to Microsft Sharepoint LMS in One small step for man. Project started in 2003 (?) and this posting is from November, 2007.