Faculty Data • 1,297 Completed (16%)

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Faculty Data • 1,297 Completed (16%) 3/2/17 Agenda • Faculty Survey Results • Student Data Results Learning Management System (LMS) • Study Implications Evaluation & Selection Initiative • Next steps Boulder Faculty Assembly Presentation • Discussion Thursday, March 2, 2017 Survey Responses • Sent to 8,055 faculty and graduate students • 1,599 participants (19.85%) started the survey Faculty Data • 1,297 completed (16%) 1 3/2/17 Participant Roles Participant Demographics 5% 23% 72% Faculty Teaching Assistant Other Question 1: Question 2 (shown to respondents that did not use an LMS in the last two academic years): Have you used a learning management system (LMS) (e.g., Desire2Learn, Moodle, Canvas, etc.) within the Which LMS did you last use as your primary LMS? last two academic years? Answer Percentage of Respondents I have never used an LMS 65% Blackboard 10% Other 9.5% Desire2Learn 8.2% Home grown LMS at another institution 1.6% Moodle 1.2% Canvas .41% Sakai, Google Classroom, or eCollege Learning Studio 0% No response 3.7% 2 3/2/17 Question 3 (shown to respondents that did not use an LMS in the last two academic years): Question 4: Which LMS do you primarily use? Why don't you use an LMS? Select all that apply. Answers Number of Responses Answers Percentage of Respondents Other tools (e.g., my own website, eText) are more useful/easier to use. 71 Desire2Learn 91% Moodle 3.0% I don't need to provide my course materials digitally. 39 Other 2.4% There is no incentive for me to use an LMS. 35 Canvas 1.5% I don't have the time to learn it. 35 Blackboard 1.2% I don't know what an LMS is. 35 Google Classroom .30% It doesn't fit my teaching style. 30 Sakai .30% eCollege Learning Studio .075% Other 110 No responses .30% No response 37 Question 5: LMSs provide many tools. Which tool(s) do you regularly use? Select all that apply. 3 3/2/17 Question 7 (shown to respondents that used an LMS within the last two academic years): How satisfied are you with the tool(s) that you use? Questions 8 (shown to respondents that used an LMS within the last two academic years): For each tool, please choose the reason(s) why you are satisfied with that tool by checking the boxes in the appropriate rows. Select multiple reasons per tool where applicable. 4 3/2/17 Questions 9 (shown to respondents that used an LMS within the last two academic years): For each tool, please choose the reason(s) why you are dissatisfied with that tool by checking the boxes in the appropriate rows. Select multiple reasons per tool where applicable. Tool Source of Satisfaction Kaltura/Video Supports flipped classrooms Sharing/Streaming functionality Blackboard Ease of use Cheating in the online Functionality, SafeAssign, Proctoring Software environment Questions 6 and 10: Tools not listed and sources of satisfaction and G Suite Functionality use to "complement" the LMS dissatisfaction Used to create ePortfolios Intuitive iClicker Documentation 5 3/2/17 Tool Source of Dissatisfaction Kaltura/Video Not intuitive or simple Sharing/Streaming Unreliable Not well integrated with D2L Ease of use in class Questions 11 (shown to respondents Performance of video streaming when viewed outside of that used an LMS within the last two class academic years): Cheating in the online Document markup functionality environment Grammar checker in Turnitin not working consistently Too easy to cheat on D2L exams and quizzes For each tool, please choose the reason(s) why you do not use them by G Suite Lack of a Google App/D2L integration checking the boxes in the appropriate Sections Tool Managing sections in the gradebook tool and email tool rows. Select multiple reasons per tool iClicker The iClicker/D2L integration is not easy to use and is not where applicable. reliable Expense Attendance Ease of use Design Not integrated with Grades tool Questions 12 (this question was shown to all participants): When thinking about the upcoming review of LMSs and the possibility of moving to another LMS, is there anything you think should be considered? 6 3/2/17 20% of 798 participants noted 10% of 798 participants noted that we should stay with D2L that CU Boulder should leave D2L “I would prefer not to have to learn another LMS ”I don't know a single faculty member who likes when I believe D2L already adequately meets D2L. I hope the negative reviews prompt the students' and my needs.” administration to drop D2L and switch to a more intuitive, easy-to-use platform.” “I dislike D2L, but have learned to use it. Thus I'd rather stick with it than try something unknown and probably not much better.” 18% of 798 responses commented on the cost of switching “I think D2L is adequate for my needs. I think another LMS will be adequate for my needs, but involve a learning curve, expense to the University, and logistical difficulty. I don't see Student Data why we would switch unless there is a real problem with D2L that I'm not aware of. At some point we are simply rearranging deck chairs by changing management systems every 5 years. They all have strengths and weaknesses.” 7 3/2/17 Student Data Results Data Sources We looked at multiple data sources to develop • MyCUInfo 2015 Usability Survey a rich and comprehensive understanding of the • 2016 Online Experience Student Interviews student experience with D2L and other LMSs. • WRTG 3035 Spring 2016 Report • Social Media Posts We analyzed each data source separately. • Student Flash Survey • Student-Wide Survey We looked for general patterns to compile findings. Overview of Findings D2L Feature Percentage of at least somewhat satisfied D2L Calendar 1. Students are generally satisfied with D2L. 29.2% Course Content 2. Students feel that D2L’s aesthetics are outdated. 87.5% Discussion 3. Students are frustrated with D2L’s lack of 42.7% Dropbox/Assignment Submission simplicity. 89.6% D2L Email 4. Students wish that faculty would use the D2L 47.9% gradebook more effectively. Grades 77.1% News/Announcements 5. Students wish that all their faculty would use one 68.8% LMS. Quizzes 66.7% 6. Students are frustrated with faculty’s inconsistent configuration of D2L courses. 8 3/2/17 D2L SUS Score D2L had a calculated usability score of 69. LMS SUS Scores Aesthetics & Simplicity “D2L looks somewhat old-fashioned so a LMS SUS Score revamp is necessary. Accessing grades and D2L 69 notes requires one too many clicks and searching.” Moodle 64 Blackboard 65.5 Canvas 76 9 3/2/17 Ineffective Use of the Use of Different LMSs Gradebook “If theres [sic] one thing i think that needs to be “I don't like it when my professors use other improved is how often teachers update grades platforms and then I have to remember and their syllabus. It would be more beneficial to individually for each class all of the different get grades and/or feedback from our teachers network locations for resources and materials. If sooner while the subject still has a strong anything, the framework should more strictly presence in your memory.” require profs to use d2l.” Inconsistent Use of D2L Study Implications “Many teachers do not use d2l in a standardized • Focus on user experience (e.g., ease-of-use) way, so knowing exactly what needs to be done • Evaluation criteria in request for proposals and how quickly to access the assignments they • Encourage consistency across courses want completed can be a hassle when dealing • Evaluate the relative advantage of adopting a with different styles of teachers.” new LMS • Better understand and address migration concerns • Develop Registrar Web Grading/LMS Integration 10 3/2/17 Next Steps Discussion • March • For more information • Publish Faculty Survey and Student Data Reports • Visit Project Website - http://www.colorado.edu/lms • Review vendor proposals and narrow candidate pool • April • Contact Us • Conduct detailed evaluation of systems • Aisha jackson [email protected] • Vendor presentations • Sandboxes • Sandra Sawaya • User experience studies [email protected] • May • Select LMS 11.
Recommended publications
  • LMS Data Quadrant Report
    November 2019 DATA QUADRANT REPORT Education Learning Management Systems 846 8 Reviews Vendors Evaluated Education Learning Management Systems Data Quadrant Report How to Use the Report Table of Info-Tech’s Data Quadrant Reports provide a comprehensive evaluation of popular products in the Education Learning Management Systems market. This buyer’s guide is designed to help Contents prospective purchasers make better decisions by leveraging the experiences of real users. The data in this report is collected from real end users, meticulously verified for erv acity, Data Quadrant...................................................................................................................7 exhaustively analyzed, and visualized in easy to understand charts and graphs. Each product is compared and contrasted with all other vendors in their category to create a holistic, unbiased view Category Overview ......................................................................................................8 of the product landscape. Use this report to determine which product is right for your organization. For highly detailed reports Vendor Capability Summary................................................................................ 9 on individual products, see Info-Tech’s Product Scorecard. Vendor Capabilities.................................................................................................... 12 Product Feature Summary................................................................................. 24 Product Features........................................................................................................26
    [Show full text]
  • A Review of Distance Learning and Learning Management Systems
    Chapter 1 A Review of Distance Learning and Learning Management Systems Mümine Kaya Keleş and Selma Ayşe Özel Additional information is available at the end of the chapter http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/65222 Abstract In recent years, rapid developments in technology and the web have led to many changes in education. One of the most important changes in education is in the form of distance learning. Distance learning, which is used to define education where educators and learners are physically separated, is not a new concept; however, emerging technologies and the web allow web‐based distance learning and therefore increase its popularity. As a result of these developments, many universities have started to use web‐based distance learning systems to provide flexible education that is independent of time and place. In this chapter, we review all popular, widely used, and well‐known learning management systems and include detailed comparison of some of these systems to allow institutions to choose the right system for their distance education activities. Keywords: distance learning, literature review, educational research, learning manage- ment systems, Moodle 1. Introduction Distance education, which is now also referred to as distance learning or e‐learning, has existed for centuries. Although as Keegan says “the ideas surrounding the educational endeavor are somewhat similar” [1], it is not easy to find a single definition of distance education. While according to North [2], a few definitions even look to define it in terms of a single technology, according to long‐distance teaching [3], others display distance education simply as a recent development of the class into a remote location [4].
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Learning Management Systems
    Open Source Learning Management Systems Emerging open source LMS markets Recommended LMS for each market Getting off on the right foot By Mark Aberdour Epic Technical Producer, Epic 52 Old Steine Brighton, BN1 1NH United Kingdom [email protected] www.epic.co.uk t: +44 (0) 1273 728686 f: +44 (0) 1273 821567 All rights reserved. You agree that by downloading and accessing this publication that no part of it maybe reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of Epic. Full acknowledgement of author and source must be given. ©2007 Epic Reproduction without written permission is strictly forbidden - 2 - An Epic White Paper Contents Executive summary 4 A changing market 4 The oppor tunity for Open Source 5 Emerging open source LMS markets 6 Large enterprise 6 Small and medium sized business (SMB) 6 Government and public sector 7 Primary and secondary education 7 Rapid rollout 8 Market feature matrix 8 The open source landscape 10 Benefits of Open Source 10 Risks of Open Source 11 Myths of Open Source 12 Selecting an open source LMS 13 Market recommendations 15 Large enterprise 15 Small and medium sized business 17 Government and public sector 19 Primary and secondary education 21 Rapid rollout 23 A detailed look at each LMS 24 Atutor 24 DotLRN 25 Ilias 26 Moodle 27 Sakai 28 Getting off on the right foot 30 Appendix A: Active open source LMS projects 32 References 33 Other Epic e-learning white papers 35 Epic Thinking 37 Epic Arena 38 ©2007 Epic Reproduction without written permission is strictly forbidden - 3 - An Epic White Paper Executive summary If you thought that “Open source learning management system (LMS) equals Moodle”, then think again.
    [Show full text]
  • Spying on Students: School Issued Devices and Student Privacy (EFF)
    Spying on Students SCHOOL-ISSUED DEVICES AND STUDENT PRIVACY Frida Alim, Bridge Fellow Na e Cardo!o, Se"ior Sta## A or"e$ %e""ie Ge&'art, Re(ear)'er *are" Gullo, Media Relatio"( Anal$( Amul Kalia, Anal$( A-ril 1/, 21.2 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION EFF3OR% 1 Authors: Frida Alim, Nate Cardozo, Gennie Gebhart, Karen Gullo, Amul Kalia With assistance from: Sophia Cope, Hugh D’Andrade, Jeremy Gillula, Rainey Reitman A publication of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, 2017. “Spying on Students: School-Issued Devices and Student Privacy” is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION EFF3OR% 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Part 1: Survey Results................................................................................................................................................. 8 Methods..................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Respondents and Overall Trends....................................................................................................................10 Findings..................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sakai Overview (At Michigan State University)
    Sakai Overview Charles Severance Chief Architect, Sakai Project www.sakaiproject.org [email protected] www.dr-chuck.com KYOU / sakai Boundary, Situation The Sakai Project “The University of Michigan, Indiana University, MIT, Stanford, the uPortal Consortium, and the Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI) are joining forces to integrate and synchronize their considerable educational software into a pre- integrated collection of open source tools.” Sakai Project receives $2.4 million grant from Mellon Sakai Funding • Each of the 4 Core Universities Commits – 5+ developers/architects, etc. under Sakai Board project direction for 2 years – Public commitment to implement Sakai – Open/Open licensing – “Community Source” • So, overall project levels – $4.4M in institutional staff (27 FTE) – $2.4M Mellon, $300K Hewlett – Additional investment through partners What is Sakai? • Sakai is a project - a grant for two years. • Sakai is an extensible framework - provides basic capabilities to support a wide range of tools and services • Sakai is a set of tools - written and supported by various groups • Sakai is a product - a released bundle of the framework and a set of tools which have been tested and released as a unit The Sakai Project Goals of the Sakai Project • Develop an open-source collaborative learning environment – Suitable for use as a learning management system – Suitable for use as a small group collaboration system – Suitable for building research collaboratories – Improve teaching and learning by providing a rich and extensible environment –
    [Show full text]
  • View Booklet
    VIRTUAL THE LATEST TRENDS IN TECH NETWORK WITH YOUR PEERS SHARE YOUR EXPERIENCE WELCOME Welcome to the 2021 West Virginia Statewide Wednesday’s sessions will begin at 9am, with the Technology Conference! We are very pleased that you closing keynote session by Dr. John Spencer. After a could join us for this virtual event. short break for lunch, we will resume sessions at 1pm and end the conference at 4pm. The conference will begin on Monday morning, with a wide selection of round table and panel sessions to The vendor sites will be available throughout the choose from. We will have a lunch break from 12-1pm, conference, so please take the time to visit them at your and at 1pm, we will hear from our opening keynote leisure. speaker, Dr. Alec Couros, after a short introduction from WVNET Director, Dr. Carl Powell. Monday afternoon, we We wish you a very successful and productive will continue with a variety of sessions to choose from. conference experience, and hope you will join us for a face-to-face conference in 2022! Tuesday’s agenda will consist of sessions from 9am until 12pm, with poster sessions from 11-12. We will break Best Regards, for lunch at noon and resume with sessions scheduled West Virginia Statewide Technology Conference from 1-4pm. Committee 2021 4 Sarah Barnes Tracey Beckley Lisa Bridges Harmony Garletts 2021 WVSTC CONFERENCE Tiffany Goff Nathan Justice Michelle Liga Annaliza Marks Cory Morrison Suma Ponnam MEMBERS Phil Snitz COMMITTEE 5 CONTENTS Sponsor Acknowledgments/Special Thanks to Our Premium Level Sponsors ...................7 Keynote Speakers ........................................................................................................................9 Sessions Schedule ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LMS Task Force Final Report
    REPORT LMS Exploratory Task Force, 2010-2011 August 13, 2011 Task Force Members: Lorna Wong (Chair), UW System Administration Barbara Barnet, UW-Platteville Jeff Bohrer, UW-Madison Rovy Branon, UW-Extension Jane Henderson, UW-Stout Peter Mann, UW-Madison Sharon McCarragher, UW-Milwaukee Andy Speth, UW-Green Bay Dan Voeks, UW-Madison Jim Winship, UW-Whitewater Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 3 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 5 LMS Landscape ..................................................................................................................... 7 Faculty Needs Assessment ............................................................................................ 11 Student Needs Assessment ........................................................................................... 15 Emerging Trends .............................................................................................................. 18 Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................... 25 Appendix 1 – Learn@UW Usage .................................................................................. 26 Appendix 2 – LMS Market Share for Number of Students ................................... 27 Appendix 3 – LMS Market Share for All Institutions ...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lms Market Dynamics
    BIG PICTURE LMS MARKET DYNAMICS Spring 2016 Edition Provided by MindWires LLC http://www.mindwires.com/ Powered by: by © 2016, MindWires LLC. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction or sharing is strictly prohibited (see http://mfeldstein.com/lms-subscription-terms-conditions/ for details). Information is based on best available resources. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. MindWires is a trademark of MindWires LLC. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies. To purchase additional subscriptions for access to this report, go to http://mfeldstein.com/lms-subscription/. LMS MARKET DYNAMICS | 2 CONTENTS Introduction 3 Purpose and Organization of Report 3 Executive Summary 4 Past to Present 5 Section Summary 5 The Past: The Shaping of a Market 5 The Road to Now: A Market in Transition 10 Market Share Today 16 Some Open Questions 20 Drivers of Change 22 Section Introduction and Summary 22 Changes In Product Design 23 New Markets Bring New Opportunities and Threats 30 Further Out on the Horizon 34 The Next Twelve Months 36 Will There Be More Elective Migration? 36 Will There Be Different Winners and Losers? 37 Will the Growth in Other Markets Change Platform Sustainability? 38 Appendix: Data-Gathering Methodology 39 © 2016, MindWIres LLC. Unauthorized reproduction or sharing is strictly prohibited. LMS MARKET DYNAMICS | 3 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE AND ORGANIZATION OF REPORT This report is designed help you understand the ongoing changes in adoption patterns for higher education Learning Management Systems (LMSs, also known as “Course Management Systems” or “Virtual Learning Environments”). It analyzes who is moving to or away from which platforms and how quickly they are moving.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Study, 2015 Note: the Online Version of This Survey May Be Shorter Due to Question Branching Or Question Skipping
    Student Study, 2015 Note: The online version of this survey may be shorter due to question branching or question skipping. Welcome to the 2015 ECAR Student Technology Survey! Study Description Technology is a critical part of undergraduate students’ experiences in higher education. This study explores technology ownership, use patterns, and expectations as they relate to the student experience. The results of this study can be used by colleges and universities to better engage students in the learning process. Furthermore, institutions can use the data to improve IT services, increase technology- enabled productivity, prioritize strategic contributions of IT to higher education, plan for technology shifts that impact students, and become more technologically competitive among peer institutions. We ask questions about your experiences with and attitudes toward technology and your academic experiences. Your responses will help people on your campus and beyond understand how to use technology more effectively to benefit students. There are no right or wrong answers; we would just like you to answer as honestly as you can. Participation in the survey is completely voluntary, and you can choose to exit the survey at any point. Your responses are anonymous. Required questions are indicated with an asterisk (*). This survey might take you up to 30 minutes to complete. Please use the survey’s navigation buttons below to go back or forward within the survey. Using your browser’s navigation buttons may result in lost answers. Conditions and Stipulations 1. I agree to complete this online survey for research purposes and that the data derived from this anonymous survey may be made available to my academic institution in unitary and aggregate formats and/or to the general public in the form of public presentations, reports, journals or newspaper articles, and/or in books.
    [Show full text]
  • Education Learning Management Systems Category Report Vendor
    April 2019 INTERNAL USE ONLY CATEGORY REPORT Education Learning Management Systems Blackbaud onCampus Canvas Moodle Sakai Blackboard Learning Management Software D2L Brightspace PowerSchool Learning Schoology 899 8 Reviews Vendors Evaluated Education Learning Management Systems Category Report How to Use the Report Table of Info-Tech’s Category Reports provide a comprehensive evaluation of popular products in the Education Learning Management Systems market. This buyer’s guide is designed to help Contents prospective purchasers make better decisions by leveraging the experiences of real users. The data in this report is collected from real end users, meticulously verified for veracity, Data Quadrant...................................................................................................................7 exhaustively analyzed, and visualized in easy to understand charts and graphs. Each product is compared and contrasted with all other vendors in their category to create a holistic, unbiased view Category Overview ......................................................................................................8 of the product landscape. Use this report to determine which product is right for your organization. For highly detailed reports Vendor Capability Summary................................................................................ 9 on individual products, see Info-Tech’s Product Scorecard. Vendor Capabilities....................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • LMS Data Quadrant Report
    November 2020 DATA QUADRANT REPORT Education Learning Management Systems 938 9 Reviews Vendors Evaluated Education Learning Management Systems Data Quadrant Report How to Use the Report Table of Info-Tech’s Data Quadrant Reports provide a comprehensive evaluation of popular products in the Education Learning Management Systems market. This buyer’s guide is designed to help Contents prospective purchasers make better decisions by leveraging the experiences of real users. The data in this report is collected from real end users, meticulously verified for erv acity, Data Quadrant.................................................................................................................. 6 exhaustively analyzed, and visualized in easy to understand charts and graphs. Each product is compared and contrasted with all other vendors in their category to create a holistic, unbiased view Category Overview .......................................................................................................7 of the product landscape. Use this report to determine which product is right for your organization. For highly detailed reports Vendor Capability Summary................................................................................8 on individual products, see Info-Tech’s Product Scorecard. Vendor Capabilities......................................................................................................11 Product Feature Summary................................................................................. 23 Product Features........................................................................................................25
    [Show full text]
  • Sakai Overview
    Sakai Overview Jim Farmer Sakai Community Liaison Electronic Learning Environment Seminar SURF Foundation Amsterdam – 29 September 2005 KYOU / sakai Boundary, Situation What is Sakai? • Sakai is a two year project which transitions to a broader community for the long term • Sakai is an extensible software framework to support a wide range of tools and services • Sakai is a set of tools - written by the project and by the community • Sakai is a product - a released bundle of the framework and a set of tools which have been tested and released as a unit • Sakai is a community of “partners” The Sakai Project Goals of the Sakai Project • Develop an open-source collaborative learning environment – Suitable for use as a learning management system – Suitable for use as a small group collaboration system – Suitable for building research collaboratories – Improve teaching and learning by providing a rich and extensible environment Chuck Severance, July 2005 The Sakai Product (and Tools) Ctools – Production Sakai at University of Michigan Sakai 1.0 Tools Admin: Alias Editor (chef.aliases) Help (chef.contactSupport) Admin: Archive Tool (chef.archive) Membership (chef.membership) Admin: Memory / Cache Tool Message Of The Day (chef.motd) (chef.memory) My Profile Editor (chef.singleuser) Admin: On-Line (chef.presence) News (chef.news) Admin: Realms Editor (chef.realms) Preferences (chef.noti.prefs) Admin: Sites Editor (chef.sites) Recent Announcements Admin: User Editor (chef.users) (chef.synoptic.announcement) Announcements (chef.announcements) Recent
    [Show full text]