building csu system-wide lms services using moodle

Building CSU System-Wide LMS Services using Moodle

San Francisco State UniversityAndrew Roderick, Technology Development and Support Manager

CSU Chancellor’s OfficeKathy Fernandes, Director of System-Wide LMS InitiativesJohn Whitmer, Associate Director of System-Wide LMS Initiatives

PASTHistorical background of Moodle collaboration within the CSU system

CSU Demographicshttp://calstate.edu

23 campuses Approx. 433,000 FTE students 44,000 faculty and staff We are the largest, the most diverse, & one of the

most affordable university systems in the country We play a vital role in the growth & development of

California's communities and economy

About California State University (CSU)

• ~75,000 courses per semestero ~40% had online

components in 2009

About California State University (CSU)

• 28+ server installations of 10 different versions of 4 different LMS platforms in 2009

CE 4CE 6.1CE 6.2.3Vista 8

1.9.41.9.5

Bb 7.2Bb 7.3Bb 8Bb 9

Early adopter Moodle Campuses

Four campuses use Moodle asthe exclusive LMS:

• San Francisco State - 2007• Humboldt State - 2007• CSU Monterey Bay - 2009• CSU Maritime - 2009

San Francisco State University

• 1,500 faculty and 30,000 students• 2,400 courses• Branded as iLearn• Moodle 1.9.9 in Fall• Customized gradebook, course archive, file

system, custom integrations• Mature systems and code management

processes

Stages of CSU Moodle collaboration

• Competitive

• Cooperative

• Collaborative

CSU Moodle Coalition was the context for cooperation.

CSU LMSS is the step toward collaboration.

PRESENTOverview of CSU System-wide Learning Mgmt Systems & Services

CSU Campus LMS Usage (2010)

Overview of System-wide Processes

Perform LMS RFI and RFP (2008-2009) Define LMSS Strategy (2009-2010) Implement Governance (2010-2011) Create Collaborative Projects that Benefit

Multiple Campuses (2010-)

System-wide LMSS Strategy

1. LMS Futures Group (Provosts, CIOs, Faculty) prepared 4 documents (http://dat.cdl.edu):– LMS Critical Elements– External Scan of Market & Higher Ed Systems– CSU System-wide Recommendations– LMS Governance Recommendations

2. Organize stakeholders to implement recommendations, starting with Moodle

System-wide LMS Governance

Identified Project Areas for 2010

1. Governance implementation and revision

2. Common licensing (lms, integrations, etc.)

3. Common Moodle codebase (mixed hosting)

4. Integrations – library, MERLOT, web conferencing, lecture capture

5. Migration, training

Future: shared help desk / support And other activities that governance identifies …

CSU Moodle Collaborations

Stages of Adoption/Interest

Mature New Production Pilot LMS Assessment Moodle-curious

Moodle Common Interest Group (CIG)

Forming in Fall 2010 Informational/Community and

Production/Deliverables based Open Participation + Working Groups Steered by Governance (S&PG) Broad Stakeholders (IT, AT, ID, Developers, etc.) Balance local campus needs w/ economies of

scale, common development

Community Building is like Watercolor

It’s About Balance

Campus Needs vs. Central Opportunities Vendor Hosted + Self-Hosted Needs Based on Stage of Adoption Differences in Stakeholder Perspectives Differences in Campus Environments/Size Differences in Resources and Compentencies

Discovery

How do we work with each other? How do we work with other initiatives? How do we work with others (external

institutions)? How do we work with moodle.org (core)? How do we work with vendors?

Common Code Base

End goal is stable, effective build running in a campus environment – this means interdisciplinary participation.

CSU Distribution centrally tested and managed Locally tested and customized for environments Scaled for performance across campus size Agreed upon components, add-ons More to come…

CSU-wide Initiatives

Purpose-built for the CSU Local Infrastructure Integrations Accessible Technology Initiative CSU Library Initiatives (Xerxes, etc.) Merlot Fresca Digital Marketplace/Affordable Learning

Solutions

Models, Ideas

Key Questions to Address Common codebase process – change

management framework, QA, requirements definition … in decentralized, opt-in environment

Readiness and participation “requirements” – in-kind or $$$? Recognize diverse existing investments/resources

Defining economic value and metrics – increase efficiency/VOI, not cash savings

Communication plan – addressing diverse stakeholders w/o attending every meeting

Contact Information

SF State Andrew Roderick (roderick@sfsu.edu)

Technology Development Manager

Chancellor’s OfficeKathy Fernandes (kfernandes@csuchico.edu)

Director of System-Wide LMS Initiatives

John Whitmer (jwhitmer@csuchico.edu)Associate Director of System-Wide LMS Initiatives