D2L upgrade_ MnSCU paying for …

Document Sample
D2L upgrade_ MnSCU paying for … Powered By Docstoc
					Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Instructional Management System Advisory Council MEETING NOTES July 23, 2007 10:30 – 1:30 World Trade Room, Wells Fargo Place, St. Paul NEXT MEETING: Date: September 17th, 2007 Time: 10:30 – 1:30 Location: Conference Room 3306, Wells Fargo Place, St. Paul ATTENDEES: David Bouchard, Al Essa, Carol Lacey, Cathy Summa, Nancy Black, Gary Langer, James Falkofske, Ali Serrioz, Chuck Morris, Karen Wenz, Mike Condon, Zala Frashant, Karen LaPlant, Jerri Novak, Kathleen Hertenstein ITV: Rhonda Ficek, Sally Johnstone 1. Version 8.1 Update: Mike Condon We have a list of about 26 known issues out on our project site. One was reported as a known bug. Maintenance Release 5 notes were just released. It looks as that about five of the issues can be covered by one fix. Almost all of the issues have a way to work around them, even the one with the known bug. Overall, there is only one very tedious work-around which has to do with the grade book. Having a third party that focuses on D2L security may be a better solution than relying on D2L. Currently the Respondus Lockdown Browser is available “free” until the end of this year. There is a downloadable version for both the PC and the MAC. The question about who would pay for this was asked. There is a possibility that MnSCU could pay rather than each campus paying for themselves. 2. Report on New Tools for 8.1: Karen LaPlant We received Arizona’s input on the new tools. After we reviewed it, we decided we would like to have a real pilot for Competencies and Rubrics this fall. We’ve heard from five campuses so far including Rochester, Anoka Tech., Metro State, Hennepin Tech. and St. Cloud Tech. Our thought was that anyone who wants to can start working on it this summer. They can redesign their courses to allow for outcome-based assessments. An evaluation sheet has been developed to help communicate and share results. The problem is that the D2L site administrators and trainers don’t know what’s going on. So Lesley said she will start working with them to bring them into the loop. We were hoping to pilot the Competencies and Rubrics tool with 100 – 200 courses. A pilot of this size will give us a good view of how this tool will affect the entire system. We do not want to have to turn the tool on and then close it down for everyone because of system problems. We want to try to check with other state systems like Wisconsin and Arizona to see what their experiences have been like. Right now, the best guess we can make is that the Competencies and Rubrics tool will not be too resource intensive. Other concerns have been the time frame in which we release the tool and the issue of how local campuses should turn on tools vs. the system. It is important to make it a campus decision because some campuses have more resources for training and are better prepared than others. It could take anywhere from 12 – 18 months to wait for all of the campuses to become adequately prepared. We need to make sure that the faculty have enough information to make a decision on whether or not they want to start using the new tools.

They system-level decision will kick in if the campus decision has an affect on the work that we do. Assuming that we do not find significant problems, it should remain a campus decision. Because we do not yet know how to monitor the extent to which performance issues might arise, we could potentially end up in a worst case scenario where we would have to remove a tool. This is unlikely. The load that we expect from Competencies and Rubrics is very small, the only way we would experience performance degradation is if there was a bug in the system. We would have to do some verification with D2L. Instructional Videos – We will be working with the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) to see if they will develop some pedagogical components for making resources available to people who do not really know what Competencies and Rubrics are. CTL will also be creating some on-line tutorials that will help people learn the concepts behind the new tools and then they will possibly record a web seminar. Blog Tool - There is no real benefit to turning it on. It is not a course-specific tool. Everyone on D2L has access to it. It will become a social community instead of an educational tool. It can wait until Spring. Course Mail - We were in agreement to not accept this tool at this time because of serious security issues that could cause detriment to the system. Learning Object Repository (LOR) - This group recommended allowing individual campuses to decide if they want to use the LOR. So far, only Rochester has been using it. We cannot make any more major decisions on this until we have a discussion regarding intellectual property. We need to make sure faculty completely understand what they are giving up and who has access to it. This is a complex issue and there are certain objects of this tool that are not yet ready. But there are also very helpful and necessary uses for it. For example, the LOR could be a place to store content that will be used across semesters or a course with several sections. Al Essa stated that the question at hand is: What should be the process by which a new tool becomes available? What we need to do as a council is determine this process. Do we just open it up to anyone or have a structure to it? One of the charges for this group is to make some recommendations on this. Model 1 - Assuming that the system says that technical, legal and security issues check out, it will be a campus-based decision Model 2 - The Tools Release Group deliberates and makes a recommendation and a central unit, maybe this group, then decides whether or not a tool is released. The Council made the following decisions regarding the role of the IMS Advisory Council - Motions written by James Falkofske We will evaluate tools using the following four stages of analysis:     Technical Feasibility and Viability Operational Feasibility and Viability Providing guidelines / checklists to campuses to improve decision making Looking at other policy considerations.

MOTION 1: Moved by Falkofske, LaPlant second One of the Council’s roles will be to determine the system-level technical viability and review of the tools, including that advice offered through other systems and from Desire2Learn. - passed. MOTION 2: Moved by Falkofske, LaPlant second Another role of the council would be to determine the operational viability at the system level in regards to staffing, licensing, other processes and operations (such as backup windows, hardware issues, etc.). – passed Later conversation clarified that this would include any legal responsibilities as well as any existing Board policies. MOTION 3: Moved by Falkofske, LaPlant second Council will provide guidelines and checklists to help campuses make decisions regarding campus operational viability and also facilitate coordination among campuses for best practices; the Council would also coordinate timelines for the Chancellor’s office to provide materials and activities. – passed MOTION 4: Moved by Falkofske, LaPlant second Before the release or implementation of new tools or changes to the existing IMS, council needs to determine whether there will need to be additional policies to be implemented with input from major stakeholders, or if there are implications from existing policies that should be considered. – passed MOTION 5: Moved by Falkofske, LaPlant second Based upon the current technical and operational viability of the blog tool, we will not make the blog tool available at this time. – passed MOTION 6: Moved by Falkofske, Serrioz second Based upon the current technical and operational viability of the email tool, we will not make the email tool available at this time. – passed MOTION 7: Moved by Falkofske, Lacey second (actually, multiple seconds around the table) The Competencies and Rubrics tools will be released in pilot mode by Fall semester of 2007 to all campuses with a notification that support for and availability of the tools will be a decision made at the individual campus-level. Also, a warning will be issued to faculty indicating that the tools might be withdrawn if a system-wide technical issue affects performance of the overall system. Individuals using the tools will be encouraged to provide feedback to the Council to identify best practices and feature requests at the ends of each semester. The Office of the Chancellor will be asked to provide guidelines and a schedule for full support at a later date. – passed The Council then agreed to hold off on further discussion of the Learning Object Repository until the next meeting where we will discuss intellectual property. We will establish a group who will come back to us with a feasibility and technical analysis of the LOR as well as a list of intellectual property-related issues. We need to narrow down the intellectual property issues we are going to focus on. The only relevant discussion topic for this group has to do with how intellectual property has to do with the use of an Instructional Management System. The issue will be deferred to the sub group until it is narrowed down. James Falkofske then moved to skip to agenda item #5 and then #3 - passed

3. Archive/Purge/Export Tools: Our D2L conference attendees determined that D2L has not made much progress on archiving/purging. They have assigned a person to work on it, but that is as far as they have gotten. We are members of 2 groups: Multi-state and LISA-B. LISA-B is the largest group of D2L users including us, the University of Wisconsin, Arizona State, Ohio State and others, Last year, both groups made it clear to D2L that Archiving/Purging/Exporting is a priority. D2L did not take this as a priority at the time for various reasons. At this year’s D2L conference, we hammered them hard and we think D2L CEO John Baker understands the impact that this tool will have on us. Purge and Archive - primarily administrative back-end type issues. Purge: The ability to delete data from within the system from the back end. This capability does not exist yet but D2L has made significant progress. They asked us if it is ok for them to come out with a V.1 Purge tool ahead of the Archive tool. We said that this is ok. We expect to have the purge tool by the end of this calendar year. It is not an end user tool, it is an administrator tool. It will relieve the stress on the system. At the last meeting a request was made to look at the data and develop a list of data types that can be deleted. This will become an on-going item. There is data on the system that has been flagged to be deleted but still exists. A first step should be deleting these items. Export: Ability to extract pieces of or an entire course. The export tool is the primary tool that faculty will be using on an on-going basis. Export will primarily be an end user tool while the LOR would be the proper tool for reusable objects. Archive: The IMS Advisory Council will have to develop specifications on how long to keep data. We will also need to develop policies on availability as well as archiving/purging guidelines. 4. D2L V. 8.2: This version is now available but, as of the conference, no one is using it. We may need to hold off on this for now since we just put so much staff time into the 8.1.3 upgrade. Winter break is the absolute earliest that we could get started. If we are going to start making a jump to 8.2 in December, maybe we should not spend a lot of money on 8.1 materials. We need to gather some data and make a decision by the next meeting. The first step should be to pull 8.2 into our QA environment and also build a training course in the current version to show users how to transfer their information. Everyone wants to go to 8.2 so it may be time for us to shift our attention to this. What is going to be different? - Changes in the visual interface will impact the training materials, but functionally, it will not throw off users. Respondus Lockdown Browser: Karen Wenz is almost ready to send out the information about this to Site Administrators. When they feel ready, they can turn it on. Action Items:  Mike Condon will set up a D2L Course for this Council.  Gary and David will identify the proper intellectual property issues that we need to discuss at the next meeting.  Hold September 17, 2007, 10:30 – 1:30 for the next meeting Adjournment: Meeting adjourned at 1:30 PM. Meeting notes submitted by Smitha Pennepalli,