Over the last 10 to 15 years I’ve been able to observe at reasonably close quarters at least 3 processes to select a learning management system/virtual learning environment (LMS/VLE) for a university. During the same time I’ve had the opportunity to sit through presentations and read papers provided by people who had led their organisation
The following is a quick mind dump of ideas that have arisen today about how you might make use of the usage data and content of course websites from course management systems (CMS) to find out interesting things about learning and teaching. i.e. Col is aiming to develop inidcators that might be of use to
In a previous post examining one reason folk don’t take to e-learning I included the following quote from a book by Carolyn Marvin the introduction of new media is a special historical occasion when patterns anchored in older media that have provided the stable currency for social exchange are reexamined, challenged, and defended. In that
All over the place there are people in organisations performing evaluations and comparisons of competing information systems products with a strong belief that they are being rational and objective. Since the late 1990s or so, most Universities seem to be doing this every 5 or so years around learning management systems. The problem is that
As proposed earlier this post is the first step in attempting to evaluate the differences between three learning management systems. This post attempts to understand and describe the model underpinning Blackboard version 6.3. Hierarchical Blackboard like most web-based systems of a certain vintage (mid-1990s to early/mid 2000s) tend to structure websites as a hierarchical collection
Currently, CQUni is undertaking an evaluation of Sakai and Moodle as a replacement for Blackboard as the organisation’s Learning Management System. The evaluation process includes many of the standard activities including Developing a long list of criteria/requirements and comparing each LMS against that criteria. Getting groups of staff and students together to examine/port courses to
Ania Lian writes in the paper Knowledge transfer and technology in education: toward a complete learning environment It is argued that technology itself is neither liberating, empowering nor enabling one to be with other people but that it will serve whichever goals motivate its incorporation. In a couple of papers (e.g. this one) I’ve paraphrased
CQUniversity is in the process of evaluating two open source learning management systems for adoption by 2010. We’re at the stage of finalising the criteria to be used to evaluate the two systems. The purpose of this post is to outline some thoughts about how to evaluate the evaluation criteria. What should such criteria cover?