Vote Management System

Document Sample
Vote Management System Powered By Docstoc
					          University System of Georgia
Learning Management System Transition Task Force
                  Final Report
                    30 April 2011




                   Submitted by
              Donna C. Llewellyn, Ph.D.
                  Task Force Chair
                                 Executive Summary

The University System of Georgia Learning Management System Transition Task Force
was formed in August 2010 and met from the beginning of September 2010 through to
the end of April 2011. The task force was tasked with recommending the next learning
management system (LMS) that will meet the 21st century needs of the University
System’s students and faculty.

After collecting input from the stakeholders and doing independent research into a
number of potential platforms, the task force hereby makes its final recommendation for
the University System of Georgia to move to Desire2Learn at the end of the current
contractual period with Blackboard.
                                       Background

Charge:
On August 18th, 2010, Dr. Susan Herbst, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic
Officer for the University System of Georgia charged Dr. Donna Llewellyn to chair a
task force to select a new learning management system for the System. While the
memorandum with the entire charge is given in Appendix 1, it is worth stating the
guiding principles here.

Guiding Principles:
•     Recommend a product that meets 21st century needs of students and faculty
      supporting the improvement of retention and graduation rates
•     Recommend a product that will be used for multiple purposes (e.g. academic
      instruction/research/training/continuing education/economic development)
•     Recommend a student focused minimum LMS suite to maintain affordability and
      increase efficiency
•     The task force will partner with IT to recommend an enterprise solution with an
      architecture that provides optimal performance/stability and supports increased
      enrollments of 100,000 additional students by 2020
•     The work of the task force will be an open and transparent process to include all
      stakeholders

Task Force Membership:
Donna Llewellyn worked in collaboration with Dr. Linda Noble, Associate Vice
Chancellor for Faculty Affairs, to select members of the task force with the joint goals of
achieving broad representation across institutional sectors and mission, while
simultaneously maintaining a small enough group that would enable efficient and
effective work. A complete list of the task force members is given in Appendix 2.

It should be noted that representatives from the Georgia Department of Education and the
Technical College System of Georgia were invited to serve on the task force. Students in
Georgia move from our K-12 schools to both our Technical Colleges and the University
System institutions. Therefore, it was seen as vital that we invite these constituencies to
participate in our discussions and deliberations with the intent of improving articulation
and future collaborations between the different educational stakeholders of the state.
These “outside” partners participated, but they were not voting members with respect to
the choice of finalists or the final recommendations. Further, there was a sizeable
representation from the central office and from ITS (Information Technology Services)
on this task force. It was seen as imperative that the task force move forward with
complete information that sometimes is only available at the system level, and that any
final recommendations be implementable by ITS. Again, these members fully
participated but did not vote on the recommendations.
                                         Process

Meetings:
The task force had a kick-off meeting on September 2, 2010 at Macon State College. The
group then met approximately every two weeks (except during holiday periods) via
Wimba, ending with another face-to-face meeting on April 28, 2011 again at Macon State
College. The agendas and minutes of each of the meetings were posted on the task force
web site (www.usg.edu/lms) and the minutes are included in Appendix 3. In addition to
the regularly scheduled meetings, the task force also met electronically for webinars
hosted by each of the five finalist platforms and then for a debrief session after each of
these. (See more details about these webinars in the “Deliberations” section below.) A
schedule of these webinars and a summary of the discussions from the debriefing
sessions are in Appendix 4.

Feedback and Input:
It was vital for the task force to communicate with and solicit input from the stakeholders
throughout the university system. This was accomplished through a variety of means
including:
•       A web site was set up to enable widespread distribution of relevant documents
 along with periodic “blog” postings to encourage participation from the stakeholders. A
 summary of the feedback received from these blog postings is given in Appendix 5.
•       The task force facilitated five campus-based regional town hall meetings (each
 was simultaneously available and archived via Wimba to the entire USG).
            o November 11, 2010 at Darton College
            o November 15, 2010 at Kennesaw State University
            o November 16, 2010 at Georgia Southern University
            o November 19, 2010 at Georgia State University
            o December 9, 2010 at Macon State University
 A summary document of the feedback received from these meetings is in Appendix 6.
•       The task force presented and received feedback at various USG conferences and
 meetings including:
            o Georgia Summit
            o Rock Eagle
            o Student Advisory Council
            o USG Faculty Council
•       Online surveys were administered to the faculty and students of the system.
 Reports of the results of these surveys were posted on the web site and are included in
 Appendix 7. In addition, the vista administrators of the system were surveyed to learn of
 any special issues from these support personnel.
•       Sandbox environments were set up for each of the five finalist platforms.
 Accounts were administered at each campus and users were encouraged to complete an
 evaluation survey to give their feedback on each of the five platforms. Reports of those
 survey results are given in Appendix 8.
•       The task force members and a few other invited participants (those most vocal
 during the rest of the process) were encouraged to complete a thorough rubric evaluating
 the sandbox environments. A report summarizing those results are given in Appendix 9.
                                 Decision Deliberations

Criteria:
At the initial task force meeting, the group started the discussion about the “non-
negotiables” – those things that the new generation LMS must satisfy. This list was
further refined during the following months. This resulted in a “Guiding Criteria”
document that was shared via the task force web site and was used to narrow our
consideration to a set of eight platforms. This document was posted on the task force
web site and is included in Appendix 10.

Reference Checks:
The chair of the task force then did a reference check of each of the eight platforms to
check two conditions for further consideration: the responsiveness of the
vendor/community and the historical track record of providing LMS functionality
successfully in a large scale implementation. Following this step, the task force then
further limited their consideration to five platforms: Blackboard Learn 9, Desire2Learn,
Moodle, Pearson Learning Studio, and Sakai.

One of the technical requirements laid out by ITS was that the recommended platform
must be able to be hosted internally by the USG. It was determined during further
investigations that there had been a miscommunication about one platform, Pearson
Learning Studio, and that it appears that this ability is not present from this provider.
Since this was learned late in the process (after it had been announced that they were a
finalist), they were kept in the pool of candidates under consideration.

Demonstrations and Q&A Webinars:
The task force invited each finalist platform to respond to questions related to their
functionality and future road map. For the open source contenders, this was directed both
at appropriately selected community members. Each platform was also invited to host a
webinar in order for the task force members to see a demonstration of the platform, to go
over the answers to the posed questions, and to ask follow-up questions. For the open
source platforms, the task force enlisted the support of commercial affiliates to host the
webinars and to carry out the demonstrations, and then included community members in
the Q&A portion of the webinars. The list of requested demo actions as well as
preliminary questions is included in Appendix 11. Note that in parallel to this effort, ITS
supplied each platform with their own list of questions related to technical requirements.

Evaluation Rubric:
For the final decision process, the task force agreed on an overall rubric for evaluation.
This rubric is included in Appendix 12. The task force paid special attention to the issues
of conflict of interest throughout their deliberations. One member of the ITS staff who
had been a support member of the task force left the system to join Wimba. This person
was immediately removed from all task force communications, he turned over his
physical files to another ITS staff member on the task force, and he confirmed that he had
deleted all of our communication and documents from his computer. It was further
decided that no members of the ITS staff or the central office staff should have a vote in
the final recommendation. Moreover, since all vendor communication was filtered
through the chair, she agreed not to have a vote in this decision. However, all task force
members were encouraged to participate throughout and this included giving their input
all the way through to the final deliberations. It is important to note that all perspectives
were needed in this final decision, but that the USG central office staff, ITS staff, and the
chair did not cast votes.

Final Review:
At the final meeting of the task force, all of the feedback and input data were reviewed
and discussed. Each task force member present then completed the final rubric to the
best of their ability individually. The group then had a lengthy discussion, reaching a
consensus on the rating for each item. The rating results in each category along with a
ranked order of the five platforms in each area are given in Appendix 12. One voting
member of the task force had a conflict at her institution and so could not be present at
the final meeting to participate in the deliberations or the vote. The chair checked in with
her after the meeting and she concurred with the final recommendations.
                                    Recommendations

Primary Recommendation:
To meet the needs of the students and faculty of the University System of Georgia in the
21st century, the USG LMS transition task force strongly recommends adoption of the
Desire2Learn platform as the next generation USG Learning Management System. This
platform outranked all of the competitors in all areas of consideration other than the ease
of transition. The lead in that category was Blackboard Learn 9, which is not a surprise
given that the system will be moving from a Blackboard product currently in use.
However, Desire2Learn was a fairly close second place contender in this area.

This recommendation is a result of the task force members taking all input data into
account, considering the multiple and varied contexts and needs across the system’s 35
institutions, and the need to provide a fiscally responsible solution. Note that due to the
necessity for ITS to negotiate the most beneficial economic terms for the implementation
of any recommendation, the task force did not have final cost figures for the different
platforms. However, the ITS representatives did provide their current best known figures
and these were taken into consideration. Again, due to the sensitive nature of this
endeavor, these specific cost estimates are not provided in this report. Instead a table
outlining the relative costs in various categories across the finalist platforms is provided
in Appendix 13.

Especially vital is the need for ITS to be able to support the selected solution centrally
while simultaneously providing the flexibility and customization that the individual
institutions require, given the fiscal realities of the USG budget at this time. Moreover,
this must be balanced with the need to provide our faculty and students with a usable,
stable, and technologically advanced LMS platform. The task force was united in its
determination that Desire2Learn was the only contender that satisfied all of these
constraints.

The task force also understood that due to the dire nature of the current budget situation
that there is a possibility that there are zero additional dollars to invest in a new LMS
solution. One potential solution to this dilemma is to wait one year for the necessary
investment in infrastructure. This would enable ITS and the campuses to carry out low-
cost planning during FY12 and then be ready to move forward provided that the economy
has improved for FY13. This does present a potential risk, however ITS has stated that
this is a feasible plan.

While the task force believes that it is vital to invest in the teaching and learning
environment, if it is indeed true that the System has zero new dollars available for
spending on license fees during the next two years, then the task force agreed that it is
acceptable to remain with Blackboard with their scaled back contract offer (current price
guaranteed for up to five years) until such time as the fiscal situation improves enough to
implement our primary recommendation of Desire2Learn. It should be noted that even
this option does carry with it an additional cost of training and migration. Further,
without a heavy investment in hardware and related infrastructure, this solution will not
meet the highly desired need for customization at the campus level. Please see more
information about this option and all of the cost issues in Appendix 13.

It should be noted that, as mentioned earlier, the Pearson Learning Studio platform can
not be hosted internally by the USG. Therefore, since this was a criteria set forth by ITS,
the task force does not recommend this platform under any circumstances.

Related Policy Recommendations:
The task force also discussed several related policy issues for the USG. They
unanimously make the following recommendations:
•       The chosen LMS provider should state their commitment to accessibility issues
 and if possible, this should be written into the contract. The students in the USG clearly
 stated this as a priority in our stakeholder survey, and it is the right and legal thing to do.
•       There should continue to be a policy and procedure allowing institutions to opt
 out of the centrally provided and supported LMS. This policy should include the caveat
 that such a decision on the part of any institution should not result in higher costs for the
 other institutions in the USG or ITS. In choosing Desire2Learn, the task force gave a
 large weight to the flexibility that it will permit between campuses as well as on
 individual campuses. However, the task force understands that no one LMS solution is
 right for all contexts, and that therefore, if the case can be made that there exists a better
 LMS for a particular institutional situation then that should be respected. However, this
 should in no way have a negative fiscal impact on the System or the other institutions.
•       All institutions should have one LMS for all of their faculty and students,
 regardless of academic discipline. The students of the USG were very clear that they
 strongly prefer a unified LMS platform on their respective campus. The downsides from
 allowing multiple LMS platforms on a single campus strongly outweigh the potential
 benefits of this kind of flexibility at an institution.
                                     Appendices
1: Charge memorandum

2: List of task force members

3: Task force meeting minutes

4: Webinar schedule and summary of debriefing meetings

5: Summary of blog postings

6: Summary of task force town hall input

7: Faculty and student stakeholder survey reports

8: Sandbox evaluation surveys

9: Task force sandbox evaluation rubric and summary of results

10: Guiding criteria document

11: Finalist questions and demo requests

12: Final rubric form and summary of results

13. Relative costing information and considerations
    Appendix 1
Charge Memorandum
DR. SUSAN HERBST
CHIEF ACADEMIC OFFICER
 & EXECUTIVE VICE CHANCELLOR                                                                           PHONE (404) 657-1332
270 WASHINGTON STREET, S.W.                                                                               FAX (404) 463-6682
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30334                                                                             SUSAN.HERBST@USG.EDU



                                                      Aug. 19, 2010


TO:         Donna Llewellyn, Director, Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning,
            Georgia Institute of Technology

FROM: Susan Herbst, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer

cc:         Institutional Presidents
            Vice Presidents for Academic Affairs
            Vice Presidents for Student Affairs
            Chief Business/Fiscal Officers
            ACIT Representatives
            GeorgiaVIEW Institutional Administrators

RE:         Learning Management System Task Force

Overview            The University System of Georgia currently hosts a centralized Learning Management
                    System (Blackboard Learning System - Vista 8) for 32 institutions as part of the
                    GeorgiaVIEW Service. Vista 8 operational support from Blackboard ends in January 2013
                    and there are currently serious issues of parity between Blackboard’s Vista 8 and their
                    newest product - Learn 9.1 (for example, lack of multi-institutional functionality, integration
                    with the Student Information System, learning context hierarchy, lack of a clear migration
                    path). For these reasons, we must initiate a project to bring together USG stakeholders to
                    evaluate and select a Learning Management System that will support the strategic goals of
                    the University System of Georgia and the needs of our institutions.

Action              Although there is a major IT component to this decision, the ultimate decision regarding next
                    steps resides with Academic Affairs. Therefore, the University System of Georgia has
                    identified you to chair a task force whose primary goal is to recommend a next generation
                    Learning Management System. The task force should consist of representatives from the
                    faculty, students, information technology, and other appropriate end-users and agencies.

Guiding Principles for the Task Force
   • Recommend a product that meets 21st century needs of students and faculty supporting the
     improvement of retention and graduation rates
   • Recommend a product that will be used for multiple purposes (e.g. academic
     instruction/research/training/continuing education/economic development)
   • Recommend a student focused minimum LMS suite to maintain affordability and increase efficiency


                                          "Creating a More Educated Georgia"
                                                      www.usg.edu
   • The task force will partner with IT to recommend an enterprise solution with an architecture that
     provides optimal performance/stability and supports increased enrollments of 100,000 additional
     students by 2020
   • The work of the task force will be an open and transparent process to include all stakeholders

Timeframe      To ensure time for a successful implementation of the new LMS and provide at least two
               implementation groups of campuses, the selection process must not only be thorough and
               inclusive of all stakeholders, but timely as well. The expectation is for the task force to
               submit a vendor recommendation, concluding the RFP process, by March 2011.

Next Steps     Below are the next steps we foresee being completed as soon as possible. Doug Hyche, the
               director of GeorgiaVIEW (program within USG that manages the day-to-day operations of
               Vista 8), will organize a meeting with you to provide background and data to assist with
               these initial endeavors.

   •   Finalize the membership of the task force
   •   Develop a stakeholder analysis of those affected by LMS selection/implementation
   •   Develop a communication plan and strategy
   •   Establish time commitments and expectations for members
   •   Identify the selection/review process

I wish to thank you and Georgia Tech for their willingness to share their expertise in guiding the selection
of our system’s next learning management system. The inclusion and cooperation amongst our institutional
stakeholders during the selection process is critical as we prepare to select a student-centered solution that
effectively supports the core mission of the University System of Georgia: teaching and learning.




                                      "Creating a More Educated Georgia"
                                                 www.usg.edu
         Appendix 2
List of task force members
USG Learning Management System Transition Task Force
Membership and Contact Information

       Member                       Institution                       Role                          Email                   Phone
Donna Llewellyn        Georgia Institute of Technology      task force chair          donna.llewellyn@cetl.gatech.edu   404-894-2340
Tracy Adkins           Georgia Perimeter College            vista administrator               tadkins@gpc.edu           678 891 3456
Donald (Will) AllisonGeorgia Southern University            student representative da00928@georgiasouthern.edu          678-839-5300
Jill Brady             North Georgia College and State Univ registrar                    jebrady@northgeorgia.edu       706-864-1882
Christina Clayton      Department of Education              virtual learning, DOE         cclayton@doe.k12.ga.us        404-617-2048
Sherry Clouser         University of Georgia                distance education                  sac@uga.edu             706-542-0525
Gabby Grant            University of West Georgia           student representative        ggrant1@my.westga.edu         718-749-2277
Charles Hodges         Georgia Southern University          faculty representative     chodges@georgiasouthern.edu      912/478-0497
Robert Keown           Georgia Virtual Technical College    virtual learning, technic         rkeown@tcsg.edu           404.679.1667
Betty LaDuke           Georgia Perimeter College            faculty representative         Bettie.laduke@gpc.edu        404-654-0968
Barry Monk             Macon State College                  faculty representative      barry.monk@maconstate.edu       478-757-2656
Darryn Ostrander       Darton                               distance education          darryn.ostrander@darton.edu     229 -317-6838
Chris Randall          Kennesaw State University            faculty representative        crandal2@kennesaw.edu         770.423.6410
Kimberly Tanner        Valdosta State University            disability services            katanner@valdosta.edu        229-245-2498
Curt Carver            USG                                  CIO                             curt.carver@usg.edu         404-657-1588
Virginia Michelich USG                                      student achievement          virginia.michelich@usg.edu     404-463-0502
Linda Noble            USG                                  faculty affairs                 linda.noble@usg.edu         404-656-0764
Barry Robinson         USG                                  project management            barry.robinson@usg.edu        706-583-2168
Mike Rogers            USG                                  faculty affairs                 mike.rogers@usg.edu         706-583-2207
Doug Hyche             USG                                  GAView                          doug.hyche@usg.edu          706-583-2164
left task force 2/9/11
        Appendix 3
Task force meeting minutes
2 September 2010
Kick-off Meeting of the USG LMS Transition Task Force
Macon State College
10:00 am – 4:00 pm
Attendees: all members of the task force except Kimberly Tanner

Decisions
1. Barry Robinson (ITS) will take minutes for the first meeting. The job will rotate at
each meeting
2. Additional stakeholder groups identified
                 a. Academic Advisory Committees
                 b. GOML
3. Draft Timeline – I did not record any changes to the timeline
4. Task Force will gather initial requirements from USG stakeholders to formulate
criteria to narrow down to a handful of LMS choices
5. Direct all vendor communications to Donna
6. Vet all proposed surveys, official communication from task force with Donna
7. Team will meet every two weeks via Wimba

Action Items
1. Task force team members will provide Donna with:
                a. Any contact info changes to contact list (by COB 9/3/10)
2. Mike Rogers will post SREB LMS slides to T-square (by COB 9/3/10)
3. Add to communication plan the following(Barry/Doug by COB 9/3/10)
                a. Stakeholders
                                               i. Academic Advisory Committees (see
                         Linda Noble for breakdown)
4. Initial Requirements compiled by task force members
                a. Post your previously compiled “initial requirements” list to t-square,
                Resources, Initial Requirements, or email to Donna – (Task Force
                Members by 9/7/2010)
                b. Post GeorgiaVIEW previously compiled list of sample
                desires/requirements to t-square, resources, initial requirements– (Doug
                Hyche by 9/3/2010)
5. Create t-square folder for peer institution resource material – (Donna by 9/7/2010)
                a. Post any known peer institution/system information/resources that
                relate to LMS, LMS selection, or email to Donna for posting – (Task
                Force Members by 9/10/2010
6. Post Parity lists between current implementation of Blackboard Vista 8 and possible
alternatives – Doug Hyche by 9/7/2010)
7. Send out followup memo to USG community (similar/same listservs as charge
memo) announcing the start of the project (Donna/Linda by 9/9/2010)
8. Double check ability of Task Force members to add files to t-square – Donna by
9/3/2010
9. Post Ga Summit and Rockeagle info the t-square site – Doug Hyche by 9/3/2010
10. Review communications plan and send comments/suggestions to Donna (Task force
members by 9/10/2010)
11. Create list of questions for students to be used in a survey – (Will / Gabby, Virginia
by 9/10/2010)
12. Brainstorm what social media can be used to attract student response – Gabby/Will
by 9/10/2010
13. Email your “must have requirements to Donna – Task force members by 9/10/2010
14. Review polling tools – Donna
15. Develop questions for faculty surveys – Bettie LaDuke, Linda Noble, Doug Hyche
by 9/10/2010
16. Create online surveys for different sectors on external website – Donna by 9/17/2010
17. Send out list of 9/2/10 meeting action items – Donna by 9/3/2010
18. Send Donna lists of LMS vendors you are aware of – Task force members by 9/7/20
19. Create survey for Vista Administrators – Tracy Adkins by 9/10/2010

Informational
1. Curt Carver offered ITS resources to create sandbox environments for narrowed
down LMS choices
2. Robert Keown (TCSG) has offered task force members the ability to review the
Angel LMS integrations
3. Need volunteer to represent LMS Task Force at Rock Eagle conference (Sherry
Clouser is possibility)
4. Let Donna know if you will be attending the Ga Summit conference – (task force
members by 9/10/2010)
Communication Ideas/Concerns Parking Lot
1. How do we deal with vendor requests for information (for right now, forward all to
Donna)
2. Specific Stakeholder interaction versus overall communication plan
3. Develop Questions / Surveys, reuse existing resources
16 September 2010

Meeting of the USG LMS Transition Task Force

Via Wimba

2:30 pm – 4:00 pm

Attendees: all members of the task force except Christina Clayton, Robert Keown,
Virginia Michelich, Linda Noble

Secretary: Darryn Ostrander

Agenda

o Check in and Welcome
o Call for a volunteer secretary to take meeting minutes
  o Volunteer: Darryn Ostrander
o Review of Minutes from September 2 meeting
  o No comments on September 2 minutes
o Update on action items
  o Updated Phone number
  o New files posted to T-Square
  o Email to USG community from Donna went out on Wednesday 9/15 – copy will
      be sent to task force members
  o Darryn Ostrander agreed to help at Summit
  o Rock Eagle
               Info on T-Square
               October 20-22
               Still need volunteers – confirm via email
  o List of LMS options
               Went through list that has been gleaned from email messages and an
               online list
               Members mentioned others and other lists
o Upcoming presentations
  o Georgia Summit – Donna and Darryn
  o Rock Eagle – Mike Rogers, Sherry Clouser, Darryn, others?
  o RACRA (September 30th) – Jill Brady
  o Student Advisory Council (November 6th) – asked for volunteers, Gabby Grant
      volunteered, others requested via email
o Priority lists
  o Non-negotiables – went over list that had been contributed. Discussed that need
      to clarify 508 Compliance so that this is clear to all audiences. Kimberly offered
      to do that.
  o Extremely important – went over the list that had been contributed. Clarified
     several of the items including access to source code and
  o Nice to Have - went over list that had been contributed. Discussion that many of
     these items are really features that are present in some form in Vista but that need
     improvement to be really useful. Bettie LaDuke offered to go through and clean
     up this list to make that clear.
  o Surveys – discussed that there will be several surveys aimed at different
     audiences. Chuck Hodges wanted to be sure that the data would be captured by
     campus. Doug Hyche assured us that this will be possible. Time frame is to
     have the surveys administered in October. Idea is to close them in early
     November.
              Students
                  • Will Allison has started on several surveys on survey monkey and
                      will post them
              Faculty
                  • Betty Laduke and Doug Hyche have gathered surveys from several
                      other schools. Looking to edit rather recreate.
  o Vista Administrators
              Tracy has posted a survey in T-Square
o Donna: Feedback has come from the website
o Next Steps/Action Items/Next Meeting
  o Finalize Surveys – aim for a close to final draft of the main three surveys by our
     next meeting.
              Student Survey
                  • Gabby Grant
                  • Will Allison
                  • Virginia Michelich
              Faculty Survey
                  • Bettie LaDuke
                  • Doug Hyche
              Vista Administrators
                  • Tracy Adkins
  o Start eliminating contenders from the list of candidate LMS products – go through
     the list looking at if they would be able to satisfy our non-negotiables – really a
     quick first pass – by our next meeting.
              Kimberly Tanner
              Tracy Adkins
              Barry Monk
              Chris Randall
  o Start scheduling town hall meetings – Donna will work with Barry Robinson,
     Doug Hyche, Mike Rogers, and Linda Noble to start planning and scheduling
     these. Let Donna know via email if you wish to help with this.
  o Next meeting Wednesday September 29, 10:30 – noon via Wimba (might need to
     move this afternoon)
USG Learning Management System Transition Task Force
Meeting
29 September 2010
Via Wimba

In attendance: All members except Will Allison (in class), Curt Carver, Christina
Clayton, Kimberly Tanner. Guest: Hilliard Gastfriend.

o Check in
o Call for a volunteer secretary to take meeting minutes
  o Darryn volunteers to be secretary
o Review of Minutes from September 16 meeting
  o Minutes are accepted
o Feedback from the community and from Georgia Summit
  o Issues related to non-negotiables:
  o We asked, “What is our current LMS missing that you want in the new one?”
  o We asked, “What do you want to go away in our next system?”
  o We asked “What tools do other LMS’ offer that you wish you had access to?”
o Upcoming Presentations/Meetings
  o September 30 – Jill Brady at RACRA
  o October 5 – Tracy Adkins and Bettie LaDuke will be doing presentation at GPC
     Faculty Development Day
  o October 20-22 – Mike Rogers, Sherry Clouser, Darryn Ostrander at Rock Eagle
  o November 6 – Gabby Grant and Bettie LaDuke at Student Advisory Council
     (GCSU)
o Updated Priority List
  o List is updated (version 2)
  o This will continue to be updated as we do town halls and surveys
o Surveys
              Vista Admin
              Faculty
              Student survey
  o Surveys Continued
              Timing
              Process
              Data Analysis
o Update on action items
  o LMS Contenders – we are making progress
  o Town Hall Meetings
o Review of timeline and where we are
o Other Business
o Next Steps/Action Items/Next Meeting
  o October 12 meeting at 2:30 via Wimba
  o Action Items
              Send feedback to the thee presenters of the surveys within a week
              Linda and Donna will work on the communication piece for the Surveys
USG Learning Management System Transition Task Force
Meeting
12 October 2010
Via Wimba

Minutes

o Attendees: Barry Robinson, Bettie LaDuke, Charles Hodges, Chris Randall, Curt
  Carver, Darryn Ostrander, Donna Llewellyn, Doug Hyche, Gabby Grant, Hilliard
  Gastfriend, Jill Brady, Kimberly Tanner, Mike Rogers, Sherry Clouser, Tracy Adkins,
  Virginia Michelich, Will Allison
o Secretary for today’s meeting: Jill Brady
o Review of Minutes from September 29 meeting
  o Minutes were approved as presented
o This meeting is being archived
o Presentations/Meetings
  o GaSummit presentation is archived in the location below.
     http://deimos.apple.com/WebObjects/Core.woa/Browse/gcsu.edu.4742336568.04
     742336573
  o RACRA – September 30 – Jill reported that the group was receptive to the news
     of the LMS search, but no new feedback was gathered.
  o Rock Eagle - October 20-22 – Mike, Sherry and Darryn will present next week.
     The session will not be recorded.
  o Student Advisory Council – November 5-6 – Gabby and Bettie will present.
  o Faculty Development Day (GPC) – Bettie and Tracy presented to 100 faculty
     (October 7) regarding the LMS search. Many faculty voiced concerns regarding
     the migration, but the mood was not negative. They will have additional sessions
     with faculty on each campus the week of November 1 (including Wimba
     sessions).
o Update on action items
  o Surveys
             Vista Admin (Tracy)
                  • Discussion of various questions – Tracy will revise this week.
             Students (Gabby/Will)
                  • Discussion of various questions –Gabby and Will will revise this
                      week.
             Faculty (Bettie)
                  • Discussion of various questions – Bettie will revise this week.
             Final edits on the surveys will be completed this week.
             Surveys will be made available widely via communication with VPAAs
             and CIOs from Linda Noble and other student, staff and faculty lists.
             Surveys will be open through the second week of November.
             Hilliard Gastfriend will analyze the data and have initial results available
             in late November or early December.
  o LMS Contenders
             508 Compliance (Kimberly)
                  •  Contact has been made with vendor regarding their compliance.
                     These vendors may be divided between compliant, working
                     towards compliance and will likely not be compliant during the
                     timeline of the taskforce.
  o Town Hall Meetings
             Four regional meetings will be held in November—Northwest (KSU),
             Southeast (GaSouthern), Central (GaState), and Southwest (Darton).
             One catch all (MaconSt )meeting will be held in early December.
             Simultaneous Wimba sessions will be held where possible.
             Suggested sites were reviewed.
o Other Business
  o Sandboxes perhaps available during January/February (after 3(?) contenders are
     selected in mid-December). This will depend on ability for ITS to get these up
     and running in a reasonable amount of time.
o Next Steps/Action Items/Next Meeting
  o Sessions with Vendors
             January/February, in parallel, with sandbox trials.
             Face to face if possible.
             By invitation - The taskforce would provide a list of questions in advance
             for the vendors. We would meet in Macon (perhaps) with the full task
             force. Issues would then be reviewed.
             A suggestion was made that a webinar with each vendor be held prior to
             the face to face meetings to review the features of the software.
  o Next meeting – Thursday, October 28 at 11 am.
USG Learning Management System Transition Task Force Meeting 28 October 2010 Via
Wimba

Minutes

Attendees: Donna Llewellyn, Tracy Adkins, Will Allison, Jill Brady, Curt Carver,
Sherry Clouser, Doug Hyche, Robert Keown, Bettie LaDuke, Virginia Michelich, Barry
Monk, Linda Noble, Chris Randall, Barry Robinson, Mike Rogers, Kimberly Tanner

      o Check in
      o Call for a volunteer secretary to take meeting minutes
o Barry Robinson offered to do this
o Review of Minutes from October 12 meeting
      Approved
o Presentations/Meetings
      o Rock Eagle
               The idea of pilots was a theme
      o Clarification of Terms:
           o sandbox short term – no teaching, just playing around without real student
               data, evaluate prior to recommendation
           o sandbox phase 2 –teaching, with real student data
           o pilot – after recommendation is made, production level support for limited
               teaching
           o early adopters – first phase implementation, production level support
      o Discussion of issues related to pilots and sandboxes – see summary under
           sandboxes later in the minutes.
      o Bettie and Tracy will be doing a series of sessions for all of their campuses next
           week
 o Update on action items
      o Surveys
           o Hilliard – good response thus far, should pick up as domain announcements
               go out. Reports will be provided each Friday
      o LMS Contenders
           o 508 Compliance
           o Technical Requirements
           o Discussion about migration issues
      o Town Hall Meetings
           o update
o Plans for Sandboxes
      o Type 1 Sandbox (Playing) – issues related to how many users, how inclusive they
           can be, etc.
      o Type 2 Sandbox (Teaching) – there are additional issues related to student data,
           archiving, level of service guarantee, and effect on timeline
      o Subgroup will study these issues and will report back to task force before next
           meeting
o Future Meetings
      o Will continue biweekly wimba meetings
Next meeting is November 11 at 2:30pm USG Learning Management System Transition
Task Force
Meeting 11 November 2010 Via Wimba

Minutes

Attendees:    Donna Llewellyn, Tracy Adkins, Sherry Clouser, Bettie LaDuke, Hilliard
Gastfriend, Charles Hodges, Virginia Michelich, Linda Noble, Barry Robinson, Kimberly
Tanner

       o   Check In 
        
       o   Call for a volunteer to take minutes 
           o Linda Noble offered to do this 
                 
       o   Review of minutes from October 28 meeting 
           o Approved 
                 
       o   Presentations/Meetings 
           o Student Advisory Council at Georgia College & State University 
                         These students validated much of what is on our requirements list 
                         Bettie LaDuke will send list of specific requests (includes better interface 
                         with Outlook/Exchange calendar, better downloading functionality, 
                         interface with mobile devices, flexibility in choice of software to 
                         complete assignments, more gradebook functionality and would like 
                         faculty to use this function more often) 
           o Various meetings on Georgia Perimeter College campuses 
                         Much of these requests also validated our requirements list 
                         Tracy Adkins will send list of specific requests 
           o Meetings reported other than the scheduled Town Hall Meetings where 
                members are talking about the LMS Transition 
                         Donna  Llewellyn is meeting with the Directors of Teaching and Learning 
                         Centers on November 12 
                         Linda Noble is meeting with the University System of Georgia Faculty 
                         Council on November 19 
                          
       o   Update on Action Items 
           o Surveys 
                         Deadline to participate extended to November 19 
                         Various methods of communicating the extension were determined 
                         Hilliard reported briefly on number of respondents 
                              • Response rate is good from the 4‐year institutions but under‐
                                  represented at research universities and two‐year colleges 
       o   LMS Contenders 
           o Updates were given about some of the lms’s who had not responded to 
                Kimberly’s request for info about compliance 
                 
o   Town Hall Meetings 
    o Donna is attending the meeting at Kennesaw State (Nov 15) 
    o Bettie will attend the meeting at Georgia State (Nov. 19) 
    o Mike and Charles will attend the meeting at Georgia Southern (Nov 16) 
         
o   Meetings with Other Stakeholders 
    o Donna will find a way to meet with these various groups either face‐to‐face or 
        via Wimba 
    o USG Librarians were added to the list of stakeholders to meet with 
         
o   Sandboxes 
    o Donna reported the results of the CIO Survey on the possibility of doing the 
        sandboxes in an actual teaching environment 
                 Results were mixed with no clear trend 
    o It was determined that the sandboxes would not be conducted with live 
        teaching 
    o Donna asked for volunteers from the task force to create teaching “scenarios” 
        for testing in the sandboxes 
    o Various ways to give institutional access to the sandboxes were discussed 
                 Institutional liaisons will be needed 
                 Notice to campus CIOs will be needed because their staff/faculty will be 
                 involved 
    o A separate testing group consisting of ITS support staff and Task Force members 
        will also participate in the sandboxes 
         
o   Discussion – process for choosing finalist list 
    o All information from all sources (508 compliance, scalability, survey results, 
        meetings, etc.) will be considered to narrow down the list 
         
o   Plans for vendor visits 
    o Need for strong academic affairs presences at these meetings was expressed 
    o BlackBoard will be at ITS in Athens on December 8 
                 Task Force members welcome to attend 
                 Specific questions will be developed and distributed to BlackBoard by 
                 December 1st to be addressed at Dec 8th meeting 
    o Meetings with other vendors will be scheduled soon – these will include 
        opportunity to meet both with ITS staff as well as task force members.  All will 
        be given questions ahead of time. 
         
o   Future Meetings 
    o Next Task Force meeting is November 22 at 2:30 
    o Meeting Conflict on December 9th with Town Hall at Macon State was noted 
         
o   Action Items will be circulated via email to all task force members 
USG Learning Management System Transition Task Force
Meeting
22 November 2010
Via Wimba

Minutes

Attendees:
Adkins, Allison, Brady, Carver, Clouser, Hodges, Hyche, LaDuke, Llewellyn, Michelich,
Monk, Noble, Randall, Robinson, Rogers, Tanner

o   Check in
o   Call for a volunteer secretary to take meeting minutes
    Barry Robinson will take minutes
o Review of Minutes from November 11 meeting
     Approved
o Presentations/Meetings
    Team reported the results of the LMS Town Halls and other meetings. The archives
    of the town halls are posted on the website. GSU wanted more process transparency.
    We will try to set up a blog on the website.
    Will Allison requests that we have a student focused virtual town hall meeting.
o Surveys
94 admins submissions
3650 faculty submissions
12500 student submissions
Institutional reports will be created and distributed (process to be determined – most
    likely sent to CIOs and VPAAs on each campus)
o LMS Contenders
Update on compliance issues. We now have nine lms contenders that we will concentrate
    on. All of the ones that have been ruled out show no signs of compliance or have
    been completely unresponsive to our questions about this issue. The nine that are still
    being considered are all aware of compliance issues and have some process in place
    to respond to these issues. AMAC will assist with external review as needed for
    finalists.
Now, we will check references of each of these nine contenders to arrive at a list of 5 (or
    so) semi-finalists. At that point, our list will be public.
 Reference questions
    1. size of installation – how many students/faculty/courses/campuses, size of
    infrastructure/hosted or self-hosted?
    2. how long a client/user of the platform, where did they migrate from?
    3. how did the migration go when they moved to this platform?            2. level of
    responsiveness (support and feature requests)
    4. frequency of upgrades – who dictates schedule, how determined?
    5. would you recommend lms (why/why not?)
    6. how active is the user community
    7. how hard to support faculty and student use? Does it support learning?
  Others? – input by 11.23 to donna.
o Discussion – process for choosing finalist list
o Plans for vendor visits
  will not meet f2f with Blackboard, will schedule virtual vendor demos for mid
  December - early January
o Sandboxes
  Start with existing testing scenarios, recruit folks to do the testing (sub-committee of
  task force plus other stakeholders)
  Form a sub-committee, Vista admins as campus liaisons
o Other Business
o Future Meetings
            Learning Management Selection Task Force Meeting Minutes
                                    12/8/10


Chuck Hodges called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm as the presiding officer in lieu of
Donna Lewellyn absence due to an institutional commitment. (Action items are indicated
in bold.)

Members present for the meeting were: Barry Monk, Chuck Hodges, Linda Noble, Mike
Rogers, Barry Robinson, Bettie Laduke, Chris Randall, Darryn Ostrander, Gabby Grant,
Kimberly Tanner, Tracy Adkins, Will Allison, Sherry Clouser, Curt Carver. Also present
was Hilliard Gastfriend.

Minutes from the previous meeting were approved as is.

A revised time line was presented and discussed. Chuck indicated that completing the
reference check in the prescribed time was proving to be a very difficult task due to the
slowness with which vendors were submitting references. This delay impacts the due
dates of all future steps. A vote was taken to approve the amended time line and it
passed. Action Item: Donna will now submit to Dr. Susan Herbst the revised
timeline asking for approval to proceed with the revised dates as indicated. Once it
has been approved, a notice will be posted on the web site with this information.

The next town hall is to take place at Macon State on 12/9/10. Members from the task
force attending are Donna Lewellyn, Mike Rogers and Doug Hyche.

Donna will be meeting the CIO’s of the R1 institutions via conference call on 12/10/10
regarding the task force.

Discussion was held regarding a student town virtual hall meeting. The decision was
made to not hold such a meeting but instead create blog where students would have
additional opportunities for input. Help was asked for in getting the word out to such
groups as the Student Advisory Council and Student Affairs group. Action item: Linda
Noble volunteered to reach out to these groups with this information.

There was a discussion about several individual campus activities regarding campus
based LMS selection groups.

Discussion regarding the results of the surveys ensued. A time table was presented by
Hilliard regarding availability of the survey results. A report of the system-wide
quantitative (multiple choice questions) results will be posted on the website by the end
of the month. At that time, each campus CIO will also be able to receive a data-dump of
all of the campus’ responses. The full qualitative report will be available to the task force
in early Spring. This data will be used primarily in the implementation process.
It was reported that Donna is checking references of the recommended
vendors/communities who have submitted references.
Donna is meeting with the USG legal representative concerning the RFP/sole source
process and will bring information regarding legal aspects back to the LMS group when
appropriate.

No other business was introduced. Future meeting schedule will be posted through an
email from Donna.

Submitted by Mike Rogers
USG Learning Management System Transition Task Force
Meeting
18 January 2011 (postponed from January 10 due to ice storm)
Via Wimba

Attending:
Llewellyn, Adkins, Brady, Clouser, Hodges, Hyche, LaDuke, Monk, Ostrander, Randall,
Robinson, Rogers

Minutes

o Check in and get volunteer secretary
Barry Robinson agreed to be the secretary
o Review of Minutes from December 8 meeting
Approved – will be posted on website this afternoon
o Update about survey reports
Campus-filtered raw data sent to CIOs on 1/7/2011
Quantitative (close-ended results) reports will be ready for posting within the next two
   weeks
Qualitative (open-ended results) will be ready later in the spring
o Review results of reference checks
Reviewed all reference checks. Two out of the eight platforms did not have references
   respond so they were ruled out at this point. Extensive discussion about what was
   learned through the reference process. Taskforce discussed how many contenders to
   keep in the process. Only one was eliminated due to lack of track record with large
   scale clients at this time. Donna will notify them ahead of this information being
   made public.
o Next Steps:
       Arrange vendor/community online meetings –
               Demos
               Questions (send questions one week ahead of meeting)
                    • Subgroup formed to create first list of questions for these meetings
       Start working on sandboxes
               Implementation issues
               Scenarios
               Evaluation
       Overall Evaluation Rubric
o Future Meetings
       January 28 at 2:00
       February 10 at 11:00
       March 1 at 2:00
       Will also need participation in the vendor/community online meetings
o Other Business
o Action Items
USG Learning Management System Transition Task Force Meeting
28 January 2011 Via Wimba

Attending:
Llewellyn, Adkins, Allison, Carver, Clouser, Hodges, Hyche, LaDuke, Michelich, Monk,
Noble, Ostrander, Robinson, Rogers, Tanner

Minutes

Check in and get volunteer secretary
   • Darryn Ostrander agreed to be the secretary
Review of Minutes from January 18 meeting
   • Approved
Discussion with attorney about open records laws and how they impact us
   • Daryl Grinswold – spoke about opens records issues

Update from Hilliard about survey reports
   • Quantitative (close-ended results) reports are complete and in the process of being
      formatted
   • Qualitative (open-ended results) is scheduled for spring delivery

Update on communication with vendors/communities

Next Steps:
       Arrange vendor/community online meetings – Report out of subgroup
              Will run parallel process of technical questions and functional questions –
              different expertise and audience. Each will have a rubric that will feed
              into the overall evaluation process
              Demos
              Questions (send questions one week ahead of meeting) – discussed draft
              list – make sure to add roadmap questions to functional list
       Start working on sandboxes – Report out of subgroup
              Implementation issues
              Scenarios – will use eCore courses migrated to each platform (if possible)
              Evaluation – will have a rubric for anyone who uses the sandbox. These
              will fold into the overall evaluation procedss
       Cost Considerations – ITS will start to build cost models for each of the
       remaining platforms with information from vendors and community members.
       Overall Evaluation Rubric – will consider all four components – initial technical
       questions, initial functional/roadmap questions, sandbox experiments, and cost
       considerations.

Future Meetings
   • February 10 at 11:00
   • March 1 at 2:00
Other Business
USG Learning Management System Transition Task Force Meeting
10 February 2011 Via Wimba

Attending:

Adkins, Carver, Clouser, Gastfriend, Grant, Hodges, LaDuke, Llewellyn, Monk, Noble,
Ostrander, Randall, Robinson, Rogers

Minutes

Check in
   • Chuck Hodges agreed to be the secretary

Review of Minutes from January 28 meeting
   • Approved


Donna Llewellyn provided several reminders:

   •   Task Force members must notify her regarding prior or existing associations with any of 
       our current LMS contenders.   

   •   Doug Hyche has resigned from the Task Force due to leaving USG for a job with Wimba, 
       which is a Blackboard company. 

   •   Members of the Task Force representing USG will NOT vote on our final 
       recommendation for an LMS. 

   •   Donna will not vote. 

Donna informed the Task Force that information has been added to the Task Force
website informing site visitors of the Task Force process from now to the end of the
recommendation.

Hilliard Gastfriend provided an update on our survey results. The analysis of the
quantitative data collected with the student survey is nearly complete. The analysis of the
qualitative data has begun, but there is a long way to go. Hilliard has the assistance of a
graduate student from UGA for the qualitative analysis. The analysis of the quantitative
data from the faculty survey is complete and will be posted on the website soon.

Donna informed us that all finalists at this stage have been sent a memo regarding
technical requirements, webinar and demo needs, and sandbox logistics

Curt Carver informed us that all CIOs at USG institutions were asked to refuse requests
from our finalists for special product promotions such as webinars.
Curt provided an update on contract discussions and cost calculations. The five finalists
have been (or will be in the very near future) contacted regarding contract
discussions/cost calculation information. This is to allow the task force to have costing
information as part of the input to their final recommendation. Six points in the future
negotiation of the contracts were explained.

Hilliard asked if a specific length of the eventual contract has been discussed. Curt said
that a few different time frames have been discussed, but no time frame has yet been
discussed.

Curt informed the Task Force members of a new LMS vendor has been contacting USG
institution Presidents directly. He explained what the USG central office is doing to
make sure that this does not interfere with our Task Force process.

Linda Noble commented that our Task Force members need to do all that we can to
encourage participation, as appropriate, on our campuses with the remaining parts of the
selection process.

Barry Robinson reported on a recent visit of ITS to the University of West Georgia to
discuss eCore needs with a System-wide LMS. He urged the Task Force to provide them
a way to communicate their needs to the Task Force. Linda suggested that Barry
facilitate a meeting of the West Georgia personnel with Donna in the near future. Donna
and Barry agreed.

Donna discussed next steps regarding setting up demos/webinars from the LMS finalists
and setting up sandboxes. Barry provided information regarding logistics of account
management and support of the sandboxes.

Bettie LaDuke showed a revised rubric to be used while the Task Force members
examine the sandbox environments of the sandboxes.

Donna reminded us of future meetings.
USG Learning Management System Transition Task Force Meeting 1 March 2011 Via Wimba

Minutes
Attending: Llewellyn, Brady, Hodges, LaDuke, Ostrander, Randall, Robinson, Rogers, Tanner
Volunteer secretary: Barry Robinson
 Review of Minutes from February 10 meeting – minutes approved

Update on vendor communications
       Instructure asked to be reconsidered – After a review and a discussion with several task force members, it wa
       would not be appropriate. 
       Campus Cruiser – some of the reference check emails ended up in their junk mail, they were allowed to reope
       references responded so they are not being considered further. 
       Let Donna know if you get vendor pressure 

 • Update on web meetings:
 o Schedule
 Each vendor/community partner will have two hours for demo’ing their platform, answering our pre-posted
then for an open Q&A. We will follow that with a meeting in our wimba site for recap and feedback.
 Your comments should also be posted in the appropriate resource folder in t-square.
 Details are posted in 3/1/11 meeting archive
 o Logistics
 The webinar portion will be hosted by the vendor/community partner – you will receive log on info ahead o
 Details are posted in 3/1/11 meeting archive
 • Update on sandboxes (Barry)
 o Schedule – has been pushed back a bit but we should still have 3 weeks for evaluations. Some institutions
break but all will have time to complete.
 o Accounts – there will be faculty and student role accounts available at each institution. It will be up to the
they hand these out (and if multiple users can use one account at the same time). I will send some guidelines
priorities (action item).
 o Support - Tracy Adkins is taking the lead on this (thank you Tracy). There is a listserv set up for all the v
communicate and get assistance.
 o Scripts – These will be available through the vista admins. The feedback will be programmed in vovici to
very quick turn around on the results so that we can use it in our deliberations.
 o Evaluation Rubric – Task force members will use a more detailed evaluation rubric
 o Data analysis – As mentioned, the stakeholders will input their feedback into vovici for ease of analysis, ta
into excel.
 Overall evaluation rubric – still in process
 Final meeting schedule – We will meet in Macon for our final deliberations. Date to be arranged.
USG Learning Management System Transition Task Force
Final Decision Meeting
28 April 2011
Macon State College

Attendees
Donna Llewellyn, Tracy Adkins, Curt Carver, Robert Keown, Bettie LaDuke, Chris
Randall, Will Allison, Linda Noble, Darryn Ostrander, Barry Robinson, Mike Rogers,
Kimberly Tanner, Chuck Hodges, Sherry Clouser, Gabby Grant, Barry Monk

Agenda/Notes

10:00 Call to Order
        Introductions (matching the faces with the voices):
                Around the table – name, institution, role
        Reminder of the voting process and next steps
                Who gets to vote – Members of the task force from the system institutions
excluding Central Office/ITS staff and excluding Chair
                Form of our recommendation to the Chief Academic Officer
                What will happen next – Donna will submit a report to the Chief
Academic Officer with the recommendation and a background of process and
justification. At that time, “gag order” on the task force will be lifted (we advise all
members to refer questions from outside your institution to Millsaps at central office). It
is then up to the Chief Academic Officer of how to proceed with our recommendation.

10:20 Call for a volunteer secretary to take meeting minutes – Sherry Clouser
volunteered.

Minutes from March 1 meeting were approved

10:25 Review of Charge to task force

10:35 Overview of the inputs to this decision process (our criteria for the decision)

       Review of the Rubric
               Teaching and Learning Environment
               Getting there
               Support and Community
               Moving Forward
               Cost of Ownership
       Is anything left off of the rubric? No, consider each component broadly.

       Overview of the data we have collected
              Feedback from our stakeholders:
                     Website blog entries
                     Town hall meetings
                            Additional Feedback from campus town hall meetings that
                            were not included in central task force town hall meetings–
                            importance of the master course functionality,
                            announcements, notifications, information feed, need for
                            training
                      Surveys
                      Sandbox surveys

How will we weight all this data? That will be up to each task force member.
             Reference Checks
                     No written records for these. The references were more for
                     preliminary data to clear that each considered platform had large
                     scale implementations already successfully in place and to check
                     on the responsiveness of the vendor and the community members.
             Webinars for the taskforce
             Taskforce evaluation of the sandbox environments

Noon Lunch (in the cafeteria)

To Kimberly - Any comments from AMAC or students?
         o A student who is blind was able to get through all of the systems.
         o No system was perfect. Any contract should include statements about
              addressing accessibility issues. Even features that were accessible were
              sometimes cumbersome. Question about whether or not the alt tags
              migrated – if they did not, this was actually a simple fix.

To the students – Any further comments?
           o Gabby preferred D2L and Blackboard over Moodle and Sakai in the
               sandbox environments.
           o Will worked with a diverse group of students and found varied opinions
               regarding which was the best. Everyone liked something different.
               Students care that we have a good LMS, but it won’t be a big deal to them
               which one it is. They will learn it pretty easily.

To anyone - What about interaction with the vendor and/or user community?
          o Comments about each

ITS evaluation of the technical issues related to each environment
          o The Pearson model is changing – not enough details to completely analyze
              the impact of this on our decision process.
          o D2L offers a centrally hosted system that can be controlled by each
              institution. The institutions would have to work together to work out
              upgrade schedules.
          o Blackboard says they will have the ability to offer central hosting with
              institutional customization in January; as of right now, this is not possible
              without major hardware and infrastructure investments.
           o With Sakai and Moodle, there is concern about customization for 35
             different campuses.

ITS investigation into the cost of ownership – this is still ongoing. Some ballpark
numbers were shared.

Independent work on the rubric.

Discussion on each line of the rubric to reach consensus.

What types of recommendations can we make?
  • Sole recommendation
  • Ranked order of two or three
  • Primary/Secondary Recommendation
  • Other…


4:00 Preliminary Vote

   1. Sole choice is…
      BB9 – 2
      D2L – 7

   2. If cost is chief concern, go with:
      BB9 (3.75M) – 4
      BB9 (barebones) – 1

   3. Allow to opt to:
      D2L
      Sakai – 5


Discussion about the opt-out option
If the central solution is not best for a campus, should we recommend an opt-out
solution? Not a specific solution, but that there be a process for a campus to opt out. If a
campus opts out, it should select a single solution.

Concern about saying that there is a cost issue. Would the GA citizenry blow up about
that.

Reference back to the chart (rubric results) – D2L wins most categories.

Discussion about cost issue. According to current figures, there is about a $1M
difference over 5 years between D2L and Bb9 all in solutions. Therefore, given rubric
and ensuing discussion, the cost consideration vote was retaken and the new result is that
if the system office determines that there are ZERO new dollars to spend on an lms that
they should continue with the “barebones” BlackBoard solution (the promise of no
increase from current price of ~$500,000/year) for up to five years until there is money to
implement our first choice solution of the next generation LMS: Desire2Learn.

5:00   Next Steps

Donna will be writing up the report. Until it has been delivered to the central office, we
are to respectfully decline to answer. Then the report will also be posted to the lms task
force web site.

Refer questions to John Millsaps, if desired.
                    Appendix 4
Webinar schedule and summary of debriefing meetings
Webinar Schedule

Date               Time    Platform

March 7, 2011      9am:    Sakai

March 7, 2011      4pm:    Desire2Learn

March 14, 2011     4pm:    Blackboard Learn 9

March 15, 2011     10am:   Moodle

March 15, 2011     4pm:    Pearson Learning
                           Studio
                         Summary of Debriefing Sessions after Vendor Demo Webinars 
                   Prepared for April 28, 2011 Meeting of the USG LMS Transition Task Force 
                                                         
    •   Blackboard: 
         
          Positive Features             Negative Features 
          Faculty Already Familiar      Master Course Concept Not at Level Hoping For 
          Mobiles                       Lack of Learning Content Structure 
          Rubrics                       Way TAs are handled in Large Sections 
 
 
    •   Desire2Learn: 
         
          Positive Features                                       Negative Features 
          Like functionality                                      May  be a steep learning curve 
        UI a little better than Sakai                             Why go from one company‐
                                                                  based product to another? 
        Has a WebCT feel to it                                     
        Liked the features                                         
        Much more controllable than Sakai                          
        Accessibility is not an afterthought                       
        Assess for everyone (disabilities & learning styles)       
        All Features Requested were in the product                 
        Seem to have a lot of experience migrating content         
 
 
    •   Moodle: 
         
          Positive Features                          Negative Features 
          Simple                                     Migration without Moodle Rooms may be 
                                                     impossible 
         Master Course function addressed what       No rubric feature 
         faculty wanted 
         Students can flag questions in the quiz     No real “wow” factor 
         function 
         Able to link external blog or use the       Nothing value‐added above other LMS’s 
         internal one 
                                                     Does not appear to work with mobile devices 
                                                     unless we go through a secondary vendor 
                                                     Edit view has very small icons and could be 
                                                     difficult for some to work with 
                                                     Did not address access for students with 
                                                     disabilities 

                                                        1 

 
             
             
             
 
 
    •   Pearson eCollege: 
 
        Positive Features                                      Negative Features 
        They handle migration of courses                       Instruction videos not captioned 
                                                                         
        Definite improvement over older versions of            No equation editor option for students 
        eCollege                                                
         
        Simple, but not simplistic                             Cloud  computing  will  impose            some 
                                                               limitations 
                                                                         
        They have a good philosophy regarding                  They archive everything, forever 
        accessibility                                                    
                  
        API concepts are nice                                  No MapleTA 
                                                                
        USG central office staff have familiarity with         How non‐course organizations are formed 
        Equella                                                 
        Good attention to social media (although this          Learning  Edge  owns  Equella  and  that 
        could also be done with the other systems)             company  is  prone  to  over‐commit  and 
                                                               under‐deliver 
                                                                
        Integration of multi‐media                              
                 
        Student outcomes dashboard                                     
                 
        Exam time multiplier (good for faculty, but could              
        be time intensive for administrators) 
                 
        Can alter test time for individual students                    
                 
        Reporting features                                             
                 
        Multiple roles available and customizable                      
                 
        Pleasing interface                                             
                 
        Good content organization as the default                       
        (although this could also be done with the other 
        systems) 
                 
 

                                                          2 

 
 
            
    •   Sakai: 
 
        Positive Features                     Negative Features 
        Did everything expected and wanted    Implementation 
        Works well at Tech for communities    Interface is very different – culture shock? 
                                              Will need to cluster institutions for economy of scale 
                                              Will need structure for institutions to request 
                                              upgrades 
                                              May not be conducive to cross‐institutional 
                                              collaboration 
                                              May not be customizable enough 
                                              Students may have a problem with tool bases 
                                              Some good indicators regarding accessibility 
                                              Identifies for non‐students in collaborative sites 
                                              System‐level resources to support institutional 
                                              flexibility 
                                               
 




                                                   3 

 
     Appendix 5
Summary of blog postings
                                   Summary of LMS Task Force Blog Postings 
                   Prepared for April 28, 2011 Meeting of the USG LMS Transition Task Force 
                                                        
Question #1: Thoughts on Centralized and Locally Controlled Solutions 
    • 22 comments posted with multiple posts by same individuals 
    • Three responses requested central control 
    • Three responses requested central control with local flexibility & customizability 
    • One response requested local control only 
    • Not all comments responded directly to the question 
            o Next LMS must accommodate the majority of the faculty but be flexible for innovators 
                  
Question #2: Student Input 
    • Call for questions to student representatives on the Task Force resulted in zero postings 
 
Questions #3: Comments on list of 8 Finalists: 
    • BlackBoard had two posts in support and four against adoption 
            o Negative posts included: 
                         some problems with coding errors, application deficiencies, and system design 
                         flaws 
                         too similar to WebCT 
                         Several would only use BlackBoard if required to 
    • Epsilen and Pearson each had one post against adoption 
    • Four posts recommended adoption of an open source platform and two of those recommended 
        Moodle over Sakai 
            o A total of 9 posts were very positive towards Moodle with some concerns, however, 
                 about its grade book function and online help support 
    • A few posts addressed desired requirements independent of an evaluation of any of the 8 
        finalists. These requirements included: 
            o No Java and Flash/increased compatibility with multiple browsers 
            o Ease of faculty interaction 
            o More flexible content 
            o Eliminate redundant asks when designing courses 
            o Must work with Wimba 
            o Better options to imbed other technologies (e.g., Turnitin) 
 
Question #4: What are the most important issues the TF should consider when considering future plans 
of the five finalists: 
    • Although there are several lengthy posts under this question, most are not direct responses to 
        the specific question. The posts express concerns about the process used to recommend the next 
        LMS, the makeup of the task force, the time line, and the evaluation of sandboxes that are not in 
        a real teaching environment. 
    • One post addressed the question and indicated an important issue is total cost of ownership. 
            Appendix 6
Summary of task force town hall input
                    University System of Georgia Learning Management System 

                                   Town Hall Meeting Comments 

The purpose of this document is to briefly describe the comments made by the participants in the 
University System of Georgia Learning Management System Town Hall Meetings.  

 
The meeting archives were reviewed and the comments of the participants were logged.  A careful 
listening to the proceedings resulted in the development of a coding scheme that included the 
following categories: 
 
     1. Tools and Features 
     2. Integration 
     3. Platform 
     4. Migration 
     5. Training and Support 
         

The meetings were intended to elicit input from faculty, staff and students about the impending 
change of the University System of Georgia Learning Management System (LMS). As such, the 
proceedings were open ended and participants were encouraged to comment on any aspect of both 
the LMS and the selection process .  A total of 145 comments were captured over the course of the 
five meetings with 75 relating to tools and features.  There were 19 comments about integration 
and 12 that concerned specific LMS platforms. In addition there were nine comments about 
migration, and four concerning training and support.  

Tools and Features 
The most frequent topic of the Town Hall Meeting was Tools and Features.  “Tracking” was the most 
frequently cited feature with eight comments. The grade book and internal features such as “Wimba 
like”, “wiki’s” and “media player” were mentioned seven times each.  Four mentions of email were 
made and there were three each of assessments, editing and “flexibility”. Other topics that were 
brought up were portfolios, reporting, user control and whiteboards.   

Integration 
The integration of the prospective LMS with other technologies was a popular topic at the Town 
Hall meetings. There was a significant interest in proprietary technologies such as Live Text, 
Microsoft, and various social media sites. In addition the integration of the LMS with mobile phones 
and libraries was mentioned.   

Platform 
 Comments about the platform ranged from questions about institutional branding, sandbox testing,  
and the LMS’s that are under consideration.  Several participants asked about the consideration of 
an open source LMS while others asked what specific LMS’s were under consideration. 
Migration 
The migration of content from the current LMS to the new system was an important topic. The 
participants stressed the need for an effective technology that would retain as much of their 
existing content as possible.  

Training and Support 
There were several comments about the importance of training and support. Respondents 
indicated that training well prior to the initial use of the LMS was vital and that ongoing training 
and support was equally important. 

 

 

 

 

. 

 

 

 

 
                 Appendix 7
Faculty and student stakeholder survey reports
            BOARD OF REGENTS OF
      THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA




                      
USG Learning Management 
     System Taskforce 
               
   Faculty Survey Results 
                      
             January 2011 
                      

                      
                      
                      
Table of Contents 
Survey Background ......................................................................................................................... 3 

    Comments on Survey Analysis .............................................................................................. 3 

                                                                       .
    Question 0: Please identify your primary institutional affiliation.  .......................................... 4 

    Question 1:  Have you used an LMS at your primary institution within the past two years? ... 5 

    Question 2:  Please select the reasons you DO NOT use an LMS. ........................................... 7 

    Question 3:  Please select the LMS you use most at your primary institution. ........................ 8 

                                                     .
    Question 4:  How do you use the LMS you use most?  ........................................................... 9 

    Question 5:  If you use the LMS you use most with your face‐to‐face classes, what kinds of 

    actions do you take with it?   .............................................................................................. 11 

    Question 6: Whether you are currently using an LMS or not, how would you describe your 

                                                .
    level of expertise with this type of system?  ........................................................................ 12 

    Question 7:  How important are the following administrative features of an LMS to you? ... 13 

    Question 8:  How important are the following instructional features of an LMS to you? ...... 15 

                                                                                     .
    Question 9:  How important are the following technical features of an LMS to you?  ........... 17 

    Question 10: What is your primary discipline of instruction? ............................................... 19 

    Question 11: What degree levels do you normally teach? ................................................... 21 

    Question 12: Please provide any additional comments below ................................................ 21 



                                            



LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                                                        Page 2 of 21 pages 
 
Survey Background 
 
    The University System of Georgia (USG) Learning Management Transition (LMS) taskforce 

was charged in August 2010 with recommending an LMS to replace the current system (Vista 8) 

which will no longer be supported by Blackboard effective January 2013. The taskforce has a 

broad range of representation including students and faculty as well as other USG stakeholders.  

For more information about the taskforce, please visit the website: http://www.usg.edu/lms. 

    In an effort to gather input from the main users of the USG LMS users, the taskforce 

distributed several surveys.  This document catalogues the results of the survey that was 

distributed to the faculty at all of the USG campuses.  

 



Comments on Survey Analysis

 
    The survey contained several categories of questions: Choose one, choose many (‘select all 

that apply’), choose one with option to specify ‘other,’ choose many with the option to specify 

‘other,’ yes/no, and free or open response. Because of the large number of respondents, some 

of the questions that allowed respondents to specify their own category of response created 

difficulties in the analysis. For example, question 10 was stated as follows:  


                       Q10: What is your primary discipline of instruction? 


    This question listed 23 choices for possible answers and an ‘Other, please specify’ option. 

We were surprised that of the approximately 2,900 responses, 238 (approximately eight 

percent of the sample) chose to select the Other category. We had the option of simply listing 
LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                         Page 3 of 21 pages 
 
all 238 responses but believed a qualitative analysis of the responses would yield more accurate 

and more instructive information. In the aforementioned question, a new table of results was 

created which now contained 35 items, under the subheader “Revised Table.” This analysis was 

quite complex and time consuming and also complicated any reports we were to write, but we 

believed it was the best and most accurate approach.  

     

    In this report, if a question offered the opportunity for respondents to specify an ‘Other’ 

response, the revised table has been presented. The original table and the codified ‘Other’ 

responses appear in the Appendix. The numbers labeling each response refers to a master list 

of all responses used by the coders in the analysis. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                      Page 4 of 21 pages 
 
Question 0: Please identify your primary institutional affiliation.
 
Institution                            Count % Total
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College       27     0.78% 
Albany State University                    23     0.67% 
Armstrong Atlantic State University        79     2.29% 
Atlanta Metropolitan College               14     0.41% 
Augusta State University                   78     2.26% 
Bainbridge College                         27     0.78% 
Clayton State University                   73     2.11% 
College of Coastal Georgia                 55     1.59% 
Columbus State University                  70     2.03% 
Dalton State College                       68     1.97% 
Darton College                             102    2.95% 
East Georgia College                       29     0.84% 
Fort Valley State University               24     0.69% 
Gainesville State College                  241    6.97% 
Georgia College & State University         115    3.33% 
Georgia Gwinnett College                   113    3.27% 
Georgia Highlands College                  94     2.72% 
Georgia Institute of Technology            62     1.79% 
Georgia Perimeter College                  287    8.30% 
Georgia Public Library Service             1      0.03% 
Georgia Southern University                225    6.51% 
Georgia Southwestern State University      56     1.62% 
Georgia State University                   98     2.84% 
Gordon College                             62     1.79% 
Kennesaw State University                  350    10.13%
Macon State College                        88     2.55% 
Medical College of Georgia                 162    4.69% 
Middle Georgia College                     47     1.36% 
North Georgia College & State University   142    4.11% 
Savannah State University                  21     0.61% 
South Georgia College                      30     0.87% 
Southern Polytechnic State University      64     1.85% 
University of Georgia                      242    7.00% 

LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                             Page 5 of 21 pages 
 
Institution                               Count % Total
University of West Georgia                139     4.02% 
USG System Office                         1       0.03% 
Valdosta State University                 127     3.67% 
Waycross College                          20      0.58% 
Total                                     3456     
 
 
 
 
Question 1:  Have you used an LMS at your primary institution within the past two years? 
(Respondents could only choose a single response.) 
 
 
Response                      Chart                        Frequency    Count 
Yes                                                        81.7%        2790 
No                                                         18.3%        626 
Not Answered                                                            40 
                                                  Valid Responses       3416 
                                                  Total Responses       3456 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                     Page 6 of 21 pages 
 
Question 2:  Please select the reasons you DO NOT use an LMS. (Respondents were allowed to 
choose multiple responses; responses sorted by count, not as they appeared in survey; ”Other” responses 
placed at bottom of item list.) 
 
Revised Table 

Response                                                                       Percentage          Count

I have not received adequate training.*                                          18.75%             138

It does not fit with my teaching style or pedagogy.*                             17.66%             130

Other tools (e.g., such as my own web site, Web 2.0 tools, etc.)                 15.22%             112
are more useful to me in delivering and managing my course.* 

It is not used at my institution or department.*                                 11.96%              88

There is no need for me to provide my course materials                            7.07%              52
digitally/electronically. 

Don’t know what an “LMS” is**                                                     5.16%              38

Staff, administrator, or not currently teaching**                                 4.89%              36

It is not reliable.                                                               4.89%              36

It does not provide adequate features.*                                           5.03%              37

It is too hard to learn.*                                                         4.35%              32

New teacher or new to USG**                                                       2.45%              18

Unclassifiable**                                                                  0.95%               7

Student preference**                                                              0.27%               2

Time constraints**                                                                1.09%               8

Fear of constantly changing technologies**                                        0.27%               2

Total                                                                                               736

* Response count augmented after analyzing “other” responses. 
** New category added after analyzing “other” responses.
 

LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                                 Page 7 of 21 pages 
 
Question 3:  Please select the LMS you use most at your primary institution. (Respondents could 
only choose a single response.) 

 
Response                           Chart                     Frequency      Count 
Blackboard Vista                                             11.1%          302 
CourseDen                                                    4.0%           108 
Distance Learning VSU 
                                                             2.4%           65 
Vista (BlazeVIEW) 
elearning@gsc                                                3.6%           98 
eLearning Commons (eLC)                                      6.6%           178 
GaVIEW Vista                                                 5.6%           152 
GeorgiaONmyLINE 
                                                             0.8%           23 
(GeorgiaVIEW) 
GeorgiaVIEW                                                  9.7%           264 
GeorgiaVIEW (Blackboard 
                                                             8.0%           218 
Vista) 
GeorgiaVIEW (WebCT 
                                                             10.2%          276 
Vista) 
GeorgiaVIEW Vista                                            7.8%           212 
GeorgiaVIEW Vista @ 
                                                             0.4%           10 
Waycross College 
GeorgiaVIEW Vista 8                                          10.7%          291 
GeorgiaVIEW@ASU                                              1.1%           31 
GeorgiaVIEW@BC                                               0.2%           6 
GGC Bb Vista                                                 1.8%           49 
iCollege                                                     6.7%           182 
MGC Online 
                                                             0.8%           23 
(GeorgiaVIEW) 
Moodle                                                       1.0%           27 
MSC Vista (GeorgiaVIEW)                                      1.3%           36 
Online Learning @ GCSU                                       0.1%           2 
Pirates' VIEW                                                0.8%           23 
Sakai                                                        0.2%           6 


LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                    Page 8 of 21 pages 
 
Response                         Chart                               Frequency        Count 
SSU eLearning                                                        0.3%             7 
T‐Square                                                             1.8%             50 
uLearn                                                               2.7%             72 
Not Answered                                                                          36 
                                                             Valid Responses          2711 
                                                             Total Responses          2747 

 
Question 4:  How do you use the LMS you use most? (Respondents were allowed to choose multiple 
responses; responses sorted by count, not as they appeared in survey; ”other” responses placed at bottom of 
item list.) 
 
Revised Table 

Response                                                           Percentage          Count 

To supplement my face‐to‐face classes*                                43.21%            2188 

To teach online classes (classes with 95% or greater                  20.20%            1023 
activity online) 

To teach hybrid classes (classes with 51% ‐ 94% activity              14.85%               752 
online) * 

Committee work                                                           7.56%             383 

Student advising                                                         3.48%             176 

Special student interest groups or clubs                                 2.37%             120 

Specific LMS tool**                                                      2.41%             122 

Research*                                                                2.33%             118 

Faculty training or resource**                                           0.91%             46 

Faculty communication/common area**                                      0.59%             30 

Unique/Unclassifiable**                                                  0.57%             29 



LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                               Page 9 of 21 pages 
 
Response                                                     Percentage   Count 

Administration training or resource**                            0.41%      21 

Student special projects/independent study**                     0.24%      12 

Student communication/common area**                              0.22%      11 

Unspecified communication/common area**                          0.20%      10 

Access to other tools**                                          0.12%       6 

As a student**                                                   0.10%       5 

Continuing education/external courses**                          0.10%       5 

To view or assist other teacher's classes**                      0.08%       4 

Managing GTAs/student workers**                                  0.06%       3 

Total                                                                      5064 

* Response count augmented after analyzing “other” responses. 
** New category added after analyzing “other” responses. 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                 Page 10 of 21 pages 
 
Question 5:  If you use the LMS you use most with your face‐to‐face classes, what kinds of 
actions do you take with it?  (Respondents were allowed to choose multiple responses; responses sorted 
by count, not as they appeared in survey; ”other” responses placed at bottom of item list.) 
 

Revised Table 

Response                                                                    Frequency          Count

I post a copy of my syllabus.                                                 13.79%           2254

I post documents, files, and articles.*                                       13.65%           2231

I post assignments so students can access them                                11.80%           1929
electronically.* 

I use the grade book feature so students can access their                     11.33%           1852
grades.* 

I post my PowerPoint presentations.                                           10.83%           1770

Students use it to submit assignments to me.                                   8.91%           1457

I set up discussions so students can collaborate virtually.*                   7.39%           1209

I give quizzes and tests online.*                                              6.97%           1139

I post videos/audios/podcasts***                                               5.97%            976

I set up small groups for assignments, discussions, and/or                     4.31%            704
other reasons.* 

I set up chat rooms.                                                           2.91%            476

Access outside tools/materials**                                               0.59%             96 

I use the SafeAssign feature to check for plagiarized work.                    0.48%             79 

Communication/email**                                                          0.47%             77 

Unique/unclassifiable**                                                        0.20%             32 

Calendar**                                                                     0.14%             23 

General announcements**                                                        0.14%             23 


LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                                 Page 11 of 21 pages 
 
Response                                                                Frequency          Count

Surveys/feedback**                                                        0.04%              7 

Roster tool**                                                             0.04%              7 

Learning modules**                                                        0.02%              4 

Sign‐up tool**                                                            0.02%              3 

Track student access**                                                    0.01%              2 

Total                                                                                      16,350

* Response count augmented after analyzing “other” responses. 
** New category added after analyzing “other” responses. 
*** Original category amended 

 
Question 6: Whether you are currently using an LMS or not, how would you describe your 
level of expertise with this type of system? (Respondents could only choose a single response.) 
 
Response                      Chart                           Frequency           Count 

Never used                                                    8.9%                276 

Beginner                                                      16.1%               500 

Intermediate                                                  50.4%               1566 

Advanced                                                      24.6%               764 

Not Answered                                                                      33 

                                                     Valid Responses              3106 

                                                     Total Responses              3139 


 

 

 
 
 



LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                            Page 12 of 21 pages 
 
Question 7:  How important are the following administrative features of an LMS to you? 
Please indicate the importance of each feature/function by ranking them from Not Important 
to Very Important. 
 
     Ability to automatically contact students or release information based on student 
       performance data 
     Ability to selectively release content to students based on assessment results or 
       achievement towards course outcomes 
     Ability to share documents/information  
     (such as office hours, test questions, documents) across courses 
     Ability to view reports on student performance and activity 
     Ability to set permissions to prevent certain content from being downloaded 
     Ability to administer mid‐term and end‐of‐course evaluations 
     Ability to easily create formulas for calculating grades 
     Ability to receive notification when content is updated 
     Ability to access technical support 24/7 by telephone, e‐mail, or live chat 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                               




LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                               Page 13 of 21 pages 
 
                                                                       




LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011      Page 14 of 21 pages 
 
Question 8:  How important are the following instructional features of an LMS to you? Please 
indicate the importance of each feature/function by ranking them from Not Important to 
Very Important. 
 
     Ability to create interactive learning objects, modules, or units for users with different 
       learning styles 
     Ability to manage and create groups for online student collaboration 
     Ability to provide private space in the online course for students to reflect 
     Ability to provide a space where students can develop their own ePortfolios 
     Ability to access library materials and research assistance 
     Ability to align course content with common course outline objectives or general 
       education competencies (Example: Provides the ability to map course content in 
       learning modules to the same learning objectives or competencies) 
     Ability to conduct and archive live class sessions online 
     Ability to provide secure online testing 
     Ability to detect plagiarism 
     Ability to easily create and edit mathematical and scientific equations 
     Ability to maintain a pool of test questions that are accessible for use among multiple 
       course sections that I teach 
     Ability to maintain a pool of test questions that can be used by other faculty members 
       in my department 
                               




LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                   Page 15 of 21 pages 
 
LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011      Page 16 of 21 pages 
 
Question 9:  How important are the following technical features of an LMS to you? Please 
indicate the importance of each feature/function by ranking them from Not Important to 
Very Important. 
 
     Ability to have online discussions among students in multiple sections of the same 
       course 
     Ability to include audio or video content that can be downloaded to mobile devices 
     Ability to access course from hand‐held devices (Examples: iPhones, Blackberry, smart 
       phones, mobile phones) 
     Ability to include Web 2.0 tools (blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, other new technologies) in 
       the LMS itself 
     Ability to integrate blogs, wikis, RSS feeds, other new technologies from outside 
       sources with the LMS 
     Ability to provide visual notification of the submission of new information (Examples: 
       discussion board postings, assignment submissions, quiz and exam submissions) 
 
 




LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                Page 17 of 21 pages 
 
LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011      Page 18 of 21 pages 
 
Question 10: What is your primary discipline of instruction? (Responses sorted by count, not as they 
appeared in survey. ”Other” responses placed at bottom of item list.) 
 

Revised Table 

Response                                                         Percentage      Count 

Education*                                                             12.45%  366 

Health Professions and Related Clinical Sciences*                      11.90%  350 

English Language and Literature/Letters*                               10.14%  298 

Business, Management, Marketing, and Accounting*                        8.61%  253 

Mathematics and Statistics                                              7.18%  211 

Social Sciences*                                                        6.33%  186 

Computer and Information Sciences*                                      5.75%  169 

Biological and Biomedical Sciences*                                     5.44%  160 

Physical Sciences*                                                      4.59%  135 

Psychology                                                              3.47%  102 

History                                                                 3.44%  101 

Visual and Performing Arts*                                             3.40%  100 

Communication, Journalism, and Related Programs*                        3.03%  89 

Foreign languages, literatures, and Linguistics                         2.65%  78 

Liberal Arts and Sciences, General Studies and Humanities*              2.04%  60 

Engineering                                                             1.29%  38 

Library Science                                                         1.26%  37 

Not faculty/Do not teach**                                              0.92%  27 

Physical Education, Kinesiology and Wellness**                          0.82%  24 




LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                       Page 19 of 21 pages 
Response                                                    Percentage     Count 

First Year Experience**                                          0.82%  24 

Philosophy and Religious Studies                                 0.65%  19 

Agriculture, Agriculture Operations, and Related Science*        0.58%  17 

Legal Professions and Studies                                    0.44%  13 

Unique/unclassifiable**                                          0.37%  11 

Counseling and Human Development**                               0.34%  10 

Geography**                                                      0.31%  9 

Economics and Finance**                                          0.31%  9 

Architecture*                                                    0.37%  11 

Earth Sciences**                                                 0.24%  7 

Natural Resources and Conservation*                              0.27%  8 

English for Speakers of Other Languages**                        0.14%  4 

Ethnic, Cultural, and Gender Studies*                            0.20%  6 

Continuing Education**                                           0.10%  3 

Family and Consumer Sciences**                                   0.10%  3 

Aviation**                                                       0.07%  2 

Total                                                                      2940 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                 Page 20 of 21 pages 
Question 11: What degree levels do you normally teach? (Respondents were allowed to choose 
multiple responses.) 
 
 
Response                               Chart                                    Frequency          Count 

Undergraduate                                                                   86.7%              2574 

Graduate                                                                        31.0%              920 

Professional                                                                    7.2%               213 

Continuing Education                                                            3.4%               100 

                                                                      Valid Responses              2968 

                                                                      Total Responses              2968 


 
Question 12: Please provide any additional comments below. Feel free to comment on an 
individual question or an area that was not covered in the survey but you believe should have 
been. 
 
                    (Comments and analysis appears in qualitative report.) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

  
 
This report was prepared under the direction of Dr. Hilliard Gastfriend. If you have any questions, please contact him at: 
hilliard.gastfriend@usg.edu for clarification or corrections. 




LMS Taskforce Faculty Survey January 2011                                                            Page 21 of 21 pages 
                 BOARD OF REGENTS OF
           THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA




    USG Learning Management 
     System (LMS) Taskforce 
 
        Student Survey Results 
                           
                  January 2011 
                           

                           
                           
Table of Contents 
Survey Background ......................................................................................................................... 4 

Comments on Survey Analysis ........................................................................................................ 4 

   Q1........................................................................................................................................ 6 

   Q2........................................................................................................................................ 7 

   Q3........................................................................................................................................ 8 

   Q4........................................................................................................................................ 9 

   Q5...................................................................................................................................... 10 

   Q6...................................................................................................................................... 11 

   Q7...................................................................................................................................... 12 

   Q8...................................................................................................................................... 14 

   Q9...................................................................................................................................... 15 

       .
   Q10.  .................................................................................................................................. 16 

       .
   Q11.  .................................................................................................................................. 17 

       .
   Q12.  .................................................................................................................................. 18 

       .
   Q13.  .................................................................................................................................. 19 

       .
   Q14.  .................................................................................................................................. 21 

       .
   Q15.  .................................................................................................................................. 22 

       .
   Q16.  .................................................................................................................................. 23 

       .
   Q17.  .................................................................................................................................. 25 

       .
   Q19.  .................................................................................................................................. 27 



LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                                                          Page 2 of 33 pages 
        .
    Q20.  .................................................................................................................................. 29 

        .
    Q21.  .................................................................................................................................. 29 

        .
    Q22.  .................................................................................................................................. 30 

        .
    Q23.  .................................................................................................................................. 30 

        .
    Q24.  .................................................................................................................................. 31 

        .
    Q25.  .................................................................................................................................. 31 

       .
    Q26  ................................................................................................................................... 31 

        .
    Q27.  .................................................................................................................................. 32 

        .
    Q28.  .................................................................................................................................. 32 

        .
    Q29.  .................................................................................................................................. 32 

        .
    Q29.  .................................................................................................................................. 33 

        .
    Q30.  .................................................................................................................................. 33 



                                             




LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                                                          Page 3 of 33 pages 
Survey Background 
 
     The University System of Georgia (USG) Learning Management Transition (LMS) taskforce 

was charged in August 2010 with recommending an LMS to replace the current system (Vista 8) 

which will no longer be supported by Blackboard effective January 2013. The taskforce has a 

broad range of representation, including students and faculty as well as other USG 

stakeholders.  For more information about the taskforce, please visit the website: 

http://www.usg.edu/lms. 

     In an effort to gather input from the main users of the USG LMS users, the taskforce 

distributed several surveys.  This document catalogues the results of the survey that was 

distributed to the students at all of the USG campuses.  

 



Comments on Survey Analysis 
 
The survey contained several categories of questions: Choose one, choose many (‘select all that 

apply’), choose one with option to specify ‘other,’ choose many with the option to specify 

‘other,’ yes/no, and free or open response. Because of the large number of respondents, some 

of the questions that allowed respondents to specify their own category of response created 

difficulties in the analysis. For example, question 14 was stated as follows:  

 

    Q14: From which of the following mobile platforms would you be likely to access an LMS? 

 




LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                         Page 4 of 33 pages 
This question listed 6 choices for possible answers and an ‘Other, please specify’ option. We 

were surprised that of the 9,410 responses, 1,148 (approximately 12 percent of the sample) 

chose to select the Other category. We had the option of simply listing all 1,148 responses but 

believed a qualitative analysis of the responses would yield more accurate and more instructive 

information. In the aforementioned question, a new table of results was created which now 

contained 12 items, under the subheader “Revised Table.” This analysis was quite complex and 

time consuming and also complicated any reports we were to write, but we believed it was the 

best and most accurate approach.  

 

In this report, if a question offered the opportunity for respondents to specify an ‘Other’ 

response, the revised table has been presented. Since some questions offered in the survey had 

conditional responses and redirection to different questions depending upon a respondent’s 

answers, the question numbers have been renumbered in numerical order for clarity; that is, 

the numbers appearing in these results do not match identically with the original question 

numbers appearing in the survey. 




LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                       Page 5 of 33 pages 
Q1. In which institution in the University System of Georgia are you currently enrolled? (If you 
are a transient student please select the university at which you have transient status.) Note: 
Private colleges and out‐of‐state colleges are not considered USG Institutions and should be 
filled‐in with the out‐of‐state option below. 
 
Institution                                      Count  % Total 
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College             111      0.89% 
Albany State University                          35       0.28% 
Armstrong Atlantic State University              241      1.92% 
Atlanta Metropolitan College                     67       0.53% 
Augusta State University                         202      1.61% 
Bainbridge College                               141      1.13% 
Clayton State University                         531      4.24% 
College of Coastal Georgia                       270      2.16% 
Columbus State University                        348      2.78% 
Dalton State College                             409      3.27% 
Darton College                                   694      5.54% 
East Georgia College                             117      0.93% 
Fort Valley State University                     111      0.89% 
Gainesville State College                        537      4.29% 
Georgia College & State University               165      1.32% 
Georgia Gwinnett College                         276      2.20% 
Georgia Highlands College                        241      1.92% 
Georgia Institute of Technology                  68       0.54% 
Georgia Perimeter College                        1221     9.75% 
Georgia Public Library Service                   2        0.02% 
Georgia Southern University                      526      4.20% 
Georgia Southwestern State University            372      2.97% 
Georgia State University                         415      3.31% 
Gordon College                                   746      5.96% 
Kennesaw State University                        979      7.82% 
Macon State College                              591      4.72% 
Medical College of Georgia                       171      1.37% 
Middle Georgia College                           248      1.98% 
North Georgia College & State University         539      4.30% 
Savannah State University                        9        0.07% 
South Georgia College                            39       0.31% 
Southern Polytechnic State University            346      2.76% 
University of Georgia                            1149     9.17% 
University of West Georgia                       263      2.10% 
University System Office                         6        0.05% 
Valdosta State University                        319      2.55% 
Waycross College                                 21       0.17% 
Total                                            12526   


LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                    Page 6 of 33 pages 
Q2. If you have transient status at more than one USG institution, please select the 
institutions below:   
 
Institution                                    Count  % Total 
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College           15       2.20% 
Albany State University                        17       2.49% 
Armstrong Atlantic State University            13       1.90% 
Atlanta Metropolitan College                   9        1.32% 
Augusta State University                       16       2.34% 
Bainbridge College                             8        1.17% 
Clayton State University                       21       3.07% 
College of Coastal Georgia                     6        0.88% 
Columbus State University                      11       1.61% 
Dalton State College                           13       1.90% 
Darton College                                 38       5.56% 
East Georgia College                           5        0.73% 
Fort Valley State University                   10       1.46% 
Gainesville State College                      22       3.22% 
Georgia College & State University             16       2.34% 
Georgia Gwinnett College                       15       2.20% 
Georgia Highlands College                      18       2.64% 
Georgia Institute of Technology                16       2.34% 
Georgia Perimeter College                      63       9.22% 
Georgia Public Library Service                 2        0.29% 
Georgia Research Alliance                      1        0.15% 
Georgia Southern University                    41       6.00% 
Georgia Southwestern State University          10       1.46% 
Georgia State University                       58       8.49% 
Gordon College                                 29       4.25% 
Kennesaw State University                      28       4.10% 
Macon State College                            21       3.07% 
Medical College of Georgia                     4        0.59% 
Middle Georgia College                         17       2.49% 
North Georgia College & State University       16       2.34% 
Savannah State University                      8        1.17% 
South Georgia College                          11       1.61% 
Southern Polytechnic State University          16       2.34% 
University of Georgia                          38       5.56% 
University of West Georgia                     11       1.61% 
USG System Office                              2        0.29% 
Valdosta State University                      28       4.10% 
Waycross College                               10       1.46% 
Total                                          683       



LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                    Page 7 of 33 pages 
Q3. If you have transient status at more than one USG institution, please select the 
institutions below:  
 
Institution                                Count % Total
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College       4      1.58% 
Albany State University                    6      2.37% 
Armstrong Atlantic State University        5      1.98% 
Atlanta Metropolitan College               3      1.19% 
Augusta State University                   4      1.58% 
Bainbridge College                         4      1.58% 
Clayton State University                   9      3.56% 
College of Coastal Georgia                 2      0.79% 
Columbus State University                  7      2.77% 
Dalton State College                       6      2.37% 
Darton College                             10     3.95% 
East Georgia College                       2      0.79% 
Fort Valley State University               8      3.16% 
Gainesville State College                  7      2.77% 
Georgia College & State University         6      2.37% 
Georgia Gwinnett College                   7      2.77% 
Georgia Highlands College                  5      1.98% 
Georgia Institute of Technology            7      2.77% 
Georgia Perimeter College                  14     5.53% 
Georgia Southern University                11     4.35% 
Georgia Southwestern State University  9          3.56% 
Georgia State University                   22     8.70% 
Gordon College                             11     4.35% 
Kennesaw State University                  18     7.11% 
Macon State College                        10     3.95% 
Medical College of Georgia                 6      2.37% 
Middle Georgia College                     6      2.37% 
North Georgia College & State University 4        1.58% 
Savannah State University                  3      1.19% 
Skidaway Institute of Oceanography         1      0.40% 
South Georgia College                      3      1.19% 
Southern Polytechnic State University      2      0.79% 
University of Georgia                      16     6.32% 
University of West Georgia                 4      1.58% 
Valdosta State University                  11     4.35% 
Total                                      253     
 
 
 
 


LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                    Page 8 of 33 pages 
Q4. If your home institution is out of state, please type it in below: (Sorted alphabetically) 

Institution                        Count 
Indeterminate/ Not applicable          39
Not specified                          18
Alabama                                10
Florida                                10
International                           7
Tennessee                               7
South Carolina                          6
Georgia                                 5
Online                                  5
New York                                4
Kansas                                  3
North Carolina                          3
Ohio                                    3
California                              2
Illinois                                2
Iowa                                    2
Maryland                                2
Pennsylvania                            2
Virginia                                2
Arizona                                 1
Arkansas                                1
Louisiana                               1
Massachusetts                           1
Mississippi                             1
Oklahoma                                1
Texas                                   1
Virgin Islands                          1
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                      Page 9 of 33 pages 
Q5. Please select your student classification. (Respondents could only choose a single 
response) 
 
Revised Table 
 
Response                                                                          Percentage    Count

Freshman ‐ Student who has earned 0 ‐ 29 college semester credit hours.*            29.46%       3551

Sophomore ‐ Student who has earned 30 ‐ 59 college semester credit                  23.49%       2831
hours.* 

Junior ‐ Student who has earned 60 ‐ 89 college semester credit hours.              16.48%       1986

Senior ‐ Student who has earned 90 or more college semester credit                  15.43%       1860
hours.* 

Graduate ‐ Student pursuing a Master’s, Education Specialist, or doctoral           10.50%       1265
degree (Ph.D or Ed.D.).* 

First Professional ‐ Student enrolled in Veterinary Medicine, Law, Medicine,        0.97%        117
Dentistry, or Doctor of Pharmacy. 

Post‐Baccalaureate ‐ Student who has a Baccalaureate degree who is                  0.86%        104
taking first professional or graduate courses but who is not working toward 
a degree. 

Unclassified Undergraduate (Other) ‐ Student who has a bachelor's degree            0.61%         73
who is enrolled for credit at the undergraduate level but not pursuing 
another degree. 

Transient ‐ Student taking one or more courses which he/she has                     0.49%         59
permission to transfer to his/her home institution. 

Medical/Dental/Veterinary Medicine Interns and Residents.                           0.19%         23

Unspecified/indeterminate**                                                         0.62%         75

2nd Bachelors**                                                                     0.29%         35

Dual/Joint Enrollment**                                                             0.26%         31

Certificate/Add‐on/Endorsement**                                                    0.25%         30



LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                       Page 10 of 33 pages 
Faculty/staff**                                                                       0.08%      10

Post baccalaureate,  Seeking Associate**                                              0.02%       3

Total                                                                                    

* Response count augmented after analyzing “other” responses. 
** New category added after analyzing “other” responses. 

 
 
Q6. How would you describe your race/ethnicity? (Respondents could only choose a single 
response) 
 
Response                      Chart                              Frequency    Count 
White or Caucasian (Non‐
                                                                 60.6%        7303 
Hispanic Origin) 
Black or African‐American 
                                                                 22.6%        2727 
(Non‐Hispanic Origin) 
Prefer not to answer                                             5.7%         683 
Asian or Pacific Islander                                            3.7%     440 
Hispanic                                                             3.6%     436 
Multiracial                                                          3.4%     409 
American Indian or 
                                                                     0.4%      44 
Alaskan Native 
Not Answered                                                                  118 
                                                      Valid Responses         12042 
                                                      Total Responses         12160 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                      Page 11 of 33 pages 
 
 
Q7. Please enter your current major of study.  (Sorted by number) 

Response                                  Percentage                 Count 
Nursing                                   16.05%                     2000** 
Early Childhood Education                   6.22                     775** 
Biology                                     5.18                     646** 
Psychology                                  5.06                     631** 
Management                                  4.98                     620** 
Accounting                                  3.84                     478** 
Computer Science                            3.83                     477** 
Health*                                     3.49                     435 
Business*                                   3.47                     432 
Education*                                  3.31                     413 
Political Science                           2.69                     335** 
Criminology                                 2.66                     331** 
Mass Communications                         2.44                     304** 
English                                     2.29                     286** 
Marketing                                   1.99                     248** 
General/Undecided*                          1.95                     243 
Information Technology*                     1.76                     219 
Engineering*                                1.72                     214 
History                                     1.62                     202** 
Middle Grades Education                     1.38                     172 
Mathematics                                 1.34                     167** 
Sociology                                   1.33                     166** 
Art                                         1.26                     157** 
Chemistry                                   1.26                     157** 
Finance                                     1.18                     147** 
Pharmacy*                                   1.16                     144 
Secondary Teacher Education                 1.09                     136** 
Social Work*                                0.99                     123 
Management Information Systems              0.97                     121** 
Athletics/Exercise Science/Kinesiology*     0.79                     99 
Medicine*                                   0.72                     90 
Agriculture*                                0.61                     76 
Consumer Sciences*                          0.58                     72 
Economics                                   0.51                     64** 
Physical Therapy*                           0.51                     64 
Law/Legal*                                  0.51                     63 



LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                 Page 12 of 33 pages 
Response                                Percentage    Count 
Library Sciences*                         0.47        58 
Business Teacher Education                0.46        57 
Technology Support Services               0.45        56** 
Other*                                    0.44        55 
Physical Education                        0.43        54 
Spanish Language & Literature             0.40        50** 
Physics                                   0.37        46** 
Theatre                                   0.35        44** 
Anthropology                              0.33        41** 
Counseling*                               0.32        40 
Environmental Studies                     0.32        40** 
Biology/Secondary Education               0.30        38 
Performance                               0.30        37** 
Veterinary*                               0.26        33 
Dentistry*                                0.25        31 
Science*                                  0.24        30 
Aviation*                                 0.23        29 
Language & Literature*                    0.23        29 
Construction Management*                  0.22        28 
Architecture*                             0.20        25 
Speech‐Language Pathology                 0.19        24** 
Integrated/Interdisciplinary*             0.18        23 
Biochemistry*                             0.18        22 
Geography                                 0.18        22** 
Music Teacher Education                   0.17        21 
Foreign Language*                         0.16        20 
Occupational Therapy*                     0.15        19 
Social Studies*                           0.14        18 
French Language & Literature              0.13        16** 
Teaching Field – Mental Retardation       0.11        14 
Geology                                   0.10        13** 
Global Studies                            0.10        13** 
International Economics                   0.10        13** 
Philosophy                                0.10        13** 
Earth Science/Secondary Education         0.10        12 
Economics, general                        0.08        10 
Biotechnology*                            0.07        9 
Environmental Sciences                    0.07        9 
Real Estate                               0.07        9 
Recreation                                0.07        9** 


LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                  Page 13 of 33 pages 
Response                                               Percentage                          Count 
Chemistry/Secondary Education                            0.06                              7 
Economics/Secondary Education                            0.05                              6 
German                                                   0.05                              6** 
Physics/Secondary Education                              0.02                              3 
Theory & Composition                                     0.02                              3 
TOTAL                                                                                      12,462 
*New category added after analysis of survey responses to option “other” 

**After analysis of survey responses to the option “other,” responses were coded and added to the counts of appropriate 
survey options 

 
 
 
 
 
Q8.  The majority of the courses I take at my institution are: (Respondents could only choose 
a single response) 
 
Response                              Chart                                  Frequency          Count 
Traditional Face‐to‐Face 
Instruction ‐ Little or no                                                   59.1%              6562 
online component 
Traditional Face‐to‐Face 
Instruction ‐ Heavy online                                                   18.0%              1997 
component 
Online Only/Distance 
                                                                             11.6%              1284 
Learning 
Hybrid (50% online, 50% 
                                                                             11.4%              1264 
face‐to‐face) 
Not Answered                                                                                    480 
                                                                   Valid Responses              11107 
                                                                   Total Responses              11587 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                                          Page 14 of 33 pages 
Q9. Please select all LMS you have experience with. (Respondents were allowed to choose 
multiple responses) 
 
Revised Table 

Response                                                        Frequency Count 

GeorgiaView VISTA*                                              29.76%          7150

Blackboard                                                      25.36%          6093

WebCT                                                           25.13%          6037

Blackboard Learn                                                11.53%          2771

I do not know any Learning Management Systems.                  2.48%           596

ANGEL                                                           2.34%           563

Moodle*                                                         1.29%           310

FirstClass                                                      0.52%           125

T‐Square                                                        0.36%           87

Misclassified/Unclassifiable**                                  0.30%           72

Publisher/Textbook Website**                                    0.27%           64

Desire2Learn                                                    0.23%           55

Sakai                                                           0.23%           55

Portfollio/Assessment**                                         0.10%           23

Other LMS**                                                     0.09%           21

Anlon                                                           0.02%           4

                                                                                24,026 
*New category added after analysis of survey responses to option “other” 

**After analysis of survey responses to the option “other,” responses were coded and added to the counts of 
appropriate survey options 

 
 
 



LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                                 Page 15 of 33 pages 
Q10. Please select the primary LMS you currently use. (Respondents could only choose a 
single response) 
 
Response                    Chart                       Frequency      Count 
Blackboard Vista                                        12.4%          1435 
CourseDen                                                 1.6%          185 
Distance Learning VSU 
                                                          1.1%          128 
Vista (BlazeVIEW) 
elearning@gsc                                            3.8%           441 
eLearning Commons (eLC)                                 8.4%           977 
GaVIEW Vista                                             5.7%          664 
GeorgiaONmyLINE 
                                                          1.3%          155 
(GeorgiaVIEW) 
GeorgiaVIEW                                             9.0%           1043 
GeorgiaVIEW (Blackboard 
                                                        14.7%          1705 
Vista) 
GeorgiaVIEW (WebCT 
                                                        12.1%          1401 
Vista) 
GeorgiaVIEW Vista                                       8.0%           929 
GeorgiaVIEW Vista @ 
                                                        0.1%           17 
Waycross College 
GeorgiaVIEW Vista 8                                      4.7%          544 
GeorgiaVIEW@ASU                                         0.3%           39 
GeorgiaVIEW@BC                                          0.3%           30 
GGC Bb Vista                                              0.9%              104 
iCollege                                                6.8%           793 
MGC Online 
                                                          1.0%              119 
(GeorgiaVIEW) 
Moodle                                                  0.2%           26 
MSC Vista (GeorgiaVIEW)                                   2.5%          289 
Online Learning @ GCSU                                  0.2%           19 
Pirates' VIEW                                             1.0%              113 
Sakai                                                   0.0%           5 
SSU eLearning                                           0.1%           7 



LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                   Page 16 of 33 pages 
Response                    Chart                      Frequency     Count 
T‐Square                                                   0.4%           46 
uLearn                                                     3.1%       364 
Not Answered                                                         9 
                                                Valid Responses      11578 
                                                Total Responses      11587 
 
 
 
Q11.  Approximately how many times do you log‐in to the primary LMS you currently use? 
(Respondents could only choose a single response) 
 
Response                    Chart                      Frequency     Count 
Never                                                      2.0%       233 
Monthly                                                    2.9%       332 
Weekly                                                 6.8%          783 
1‐2 times per week                                     8.5%          975 
3‐5 times per week                                     23.0%         2642 
6‐10 times per week                                    22.9%         2630 
11‐20 times per week                                   17.9%         2063 
>20 times per week                                     16.0%         1837 
Not Answered                                                         29 
                                                Valid Responses      11495 
                                                Total Responses      11524 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                 Page 17 of 33 pages 
 
Q12. Please check all features you actively use in the primary LMS you currently use. 
(Respondents were allowed to choose multiple responses) 
 
Response                     Chart                              Frequency    Count 
Grades/MyProgress                                               89.9%        8460 
Course Email                                                    72.6%        6831 
Online Quizzes and Exams                                        66.3%        6238 
Online Assignment Turn‐in                                       66.1%        6221 
Discussion Boards                                               65.2%        6140 
Calendar                                                        41.3%        3889 
Online Lecture (Recorded)                                       16.2%        1526 
Task Management                                                 15.0%        1413 
Live Chat                                                       13.4%        1257 
Cloud‐based File Storage                                        7.4%         700 
Online Lecture (Live)                                           6.4%         599 
                                                        Valid Responses      9410 
                                                        Total Responses      9410 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                      Page 18 of 33 pages 
Q13. Please rate the importance of each feature in an LMS. 
 
    Calendar 
    Cloud‐based File Storage 
    Course Email 
    Discussion Boards 
    Grades/MyProgress 
    Live Chat 
    Online Assignment Turn‐in 
    Online Lecture (Live) 
    Online Lecture (Recorded) 
    Online Quizzes and Exams 
    Task Management 




LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                     Page 19 of 33 pages 
LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011     Page 20 of 33 pages 
Q14. From which of the following mobile platforms would you be likely to access an LMS? 
(Respondents were allowed to choose multiple responses) 
 
Revised Table 
 
Response                              Percentage  Count 

Apple iOS (e.g., iPhone, iPad)                   30.74%           3137 

Google Android (e.g., Droid)                     25.35%           2587 

RIM Blackberry OS*                               17.75%           1811 

Windows Phone                                     9.14%           933 

Do not have access/do not want**                  5.06%           516 

Palm webOS*                                       3.75%           383 

Symbian OS (e.g., Nokia phones)                   2.73%           279 

Specific cell/all cell model phones**             2.12%           216 

Laptop/Netbook computers**                        1.63%           166 

Unclassifiable/Misclassified**                    1.55%           158 

Specific mobile/all mobile devices**              0.14%            14 

e‐Readers**                                       0.05%             5 

Total                                                            10,205 

*New category added after analysis of survey responses to option “other” 

**After analysis of survey responses to the option “other,” responses were coded and added to the counts of 
appropriate survey options 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                                Page 21 of 33 pages 
Q15.  Which features of the primary LMS you currently use would you most likely access via a 
mobile device? (Check all that apply.) 
 

Revised Table 

Response                                            Frequency                  Count

Grades/MyProgress                                     20.43%                    6099

Course Email*                                         18.60%                    5552

Course Announcements*                                 13.83%                    4129

Calendar*                                             10.73%                    3204

Discussion Boards                                     10.31%                    3077

Online Quizzes and Exams                              5.85%                     1746

Online Assignment Turn‐in*                            5.41%                     1614

Task Management                                       4.11%                     1226

Online Lecture (Recorded)                             3.11%                     928

Live Chat                                             2.32%                     692

Online Lecture (Live)                                 2.11%                     629

Cloud‐based File Storage                              1.71%                     509

Will not access/cannot access**                       1.33%                     396

Class content**                                       0.06%                      17

Unclassifiable/multiple responses**                   0.04%                      12

Everything**                                          0.02%                      7 

Syllabus**                                            0.02%                      5 

Unique responses**                                    0.01%                      3 

Access to other web tools**                           0.01%                      2 



LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                Page 22 of 33 pages 
Response                                                       Frequency                        Count

Learning Modules**                                                0.01%                            2 

Total                                                                                           29,849

 
*New category added after analysis of survey responses to option “other” 

**After analysis of survey responses to the option “other,” responses were coded and added to the counts of 
appropriate survey options 

 
 
 
 
Q16.  Which features do you consider the most useful in the primary LMS you currently use? 
Please rank your top three choices below. Ignore the "Not Ranked" column. 
 
    Calendar 
    Cloud‐based File Storage 
    Course Email 
    Discussion Boards 
    Grades/MyProgress 
    Live Chat 
    Online Assignment Turn‐in 
    Online Lecture (Live) 
    Online Lecture (Recorded) 
    Online Quizzes and Exams 
    Task Management 

 




LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                                Page 23 of 33 pages 
LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011     Page 24 of 33 pages 
Q17. For which of the following do you use the primary LMS you currently use? (Respondents 
were allowed to choose multiple responses) 
 
Revised Table 
 
Response                        Percentage                    Count 
Classroom                       53.97%                        8090** 
Studying                        28.77                         4313** 
Research Work                    8.03                         1204** 
Personal Work                    3.95                          592** 
Student Organizations            3.72                          557 
Social Organizations             1.33                          200 
Other*                           0.14                           21 
None*                            0.09                           13 
TOTALS                                                        14,990 
*New category added after analysis of survey responses to option “other” 

**After analysis of survey responses to the option “other,” responses were coded and added to the 
counts of appropriate survey options 

 
 
Q18. How do you rate your expertise as a user of technology items in the following areas?  
 
      Educational work (classroom, studying) 
      Research work 
      Personal work (outside of school) 
      Entertainment 




LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                        Page 25 of 33 pages 
LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011     Page 26 of 33 pages 
Q19.  How strongly would you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding 
potential barriers to your using technology in learning?  
 
 
    Accessibility is an important issue in technology. 
    I didn't have adequate technical support. 
    I don't have the skills to use technology. 
    Instructors didn't know how to implement it. 
    Software accessibility was not an issue. 
    Technology added extra work with little connection to the course. 
    Technology is too complicated. 
    Technology is too expensive. 
    Technology takes too much time. 
    The technology didn't work on my computer. 

 
 




LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                               Page 27 of 33 pages 
LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011     Page 28 of 33 pages 
 
Q20.  What method(s) do you use to learn new technologies? (Respondents were allowed to 
choose multiple responses) 
 
Response                        Percentage                     Count 
Self Taught                     38.13%                         7560** 
Help from family, friends,      25.60                          4981** 
colleagues 
Ask IT support staff            11.21                          2180** 
Learn at your workplace         10.94                          2128** 
Taking online computer classes   7.04                          1369 
Attend face‐to‐face seminar      5.88                          1144** 
Course (not online)*             0.23                              44 
Instructor/Classmates*           0.17                              33 
Other*                           0.07                              14 
None*                            0.01                                2 
TOTALS                                                         19,455 
*New category added after analysis of survey responses to option “other” 

**After analysis of survey responses to the option “other,” responses were coded and added to the 
counts of appropriate survey options 

 
Q21.  If you have a problem with technology for a class, where are you MOST likely to seek 
assistance first? (Respondents could only choose a single response) 
 
Response                       Chart                           Frequency       Count 
Friends or colleagues                                          28.4%           2308 
Course instructor                                              27.4%           2229 
Self‐help website                                              18.7%           1523 
Talk to technical help 
                                                               9.9%            807 
support on phone 
E‐mail technical support                                       7.3%            597 
Use technical help support 
                                                                   4.8%        390 
Chat 
Talk to technical help 
                                                                   3.5%         284 
support in person 
Not Answered                                                                   127 
                                                       Valid Responses         8138 
                                                       Total Responses         8265 


LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                        Page 29 of 33 pages 
Q22. Please rate your overall satisfaction with the primary LMS you currently use. 
(Respondents could only choose a single response) 
 
Response                     Chart                                     Frequency    Count 
Completely dissatisfied                                                3.4%         274 
Could be better                                                        33.1%        2691 
Indifferent                                                            10.5%        858 
Satisfied                                                              40.2%        3271 
Completely satisfied                                                   12.8%        1042 
Not Answered                                                                        69 
                                                           Mean                     3.260 
                                                           Standard Deviation  1.146 
                                                           Valid Responses          8136 
                                                           Total Responses          8205 
 
 
 
Q23. How difficult is it for you to navigate the primary LMS you currently use? 
(Respondents could only choose a single response) 
 
Response                     Chart                                 Frequency        Count 
Very easy/No trouble                                               30.8%            2507 
Easy                                                               46.7%            3802 
Indifferent                                                        16.3%            1322 
Difficult                                                          5.5%             447 
Very difficult                                                             0.7%      56 
Not Answered                                                                        71 
                                                           Valid Responses          8134 
                                                           Total Responses          8205 
 
 
 
 
 


LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                            Page 30 of 33 pages 
Q24. Please rate the usefulness of the primary LMS you currently use in improving your 
success in a course. (Respondents could only choose a single response) 
 
Response                    Chart                          Frequency    Count 
Not useful at all                                          4.3%         352 
Slightly useful                                            19.6%        1593 
Indifferent                                                17.0%        1382 
Mostly useful                                              37.0%        3007 
Very useful                                                22.0%        1783 
Not Answered                                                            88 
                                                     Valid Responses    8117 
                                                     Total Responses    8205 
 
 
 
Q25. What do you like most about the primary LMS you currently use? 
 
 
(Deleted, available in qualitative analysis report) 
 
 
Q26. What do you dislike most about the primary LMS you currently use? 
 
 
(Deleted, available in qualitative analysis report) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 




LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                 Page 31 of 33 pages 
Q27.  In your opinion, how important is it to have ONE standard learning management system 
across the University System of Georgia institutions? (Respondents could only choose a single 
response) 
 
Response                     Chart                                   Frequency     Count 
Extremely important                                                  36.9%         2990 
Important                                                            34.3%         2784 
It does not matter                                                   22.9%         1859 
Not important                                                        3.1%          250 
Not important at all                                                 2.8%          230 
Not Answered                                                                       92 
                                                            Valid Responses        8113 
                                                            Total Responses        8205 
 
 
 
Q28.  Do you think you would find an interactive tutorial helpful if you were a first time user? 
(Respondents could only choose a single response) 
 
Response                     Chart                               Frequency        Count 
Yes                                                              67.6%            5439 
No                                                               13.5%            1087 
Uncertain                                                        18.9%            1525 
Not Answered                                                                      102 
                                                           Valid Responses        8051 
                                                           Total Responses        8153 
 
 
 
Q29.  If the primary LMS you currently use had more appealing features do you think you 
might log on more? Please explain. 
 
(Deleted, available in qualitative analysis report) 
 
 
 


LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                           Page 32 of 33 pages 
Q29.  If you had comments or clarifications on an earlier question, please type them below. 
 
(Deleted, available in qualitative analysis report) 
 
 
 
Q30. If you have comments about other issues relating to LMS not covered in this survey, 
please type them below. 
 
 
(Deleted, available in qualitative analysis report) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
This report was prepared under the direction of Dr. Hilliard Gastfriend. If you have any questions, please contact 
him at: hilliard.gastfriend@usg.edu for clarification or corrections. 




LMS Taskforce Student Survey January 2011                                                    Page 33 of 33 pages 
                  Appendix 8
Summary of stakeholder sandbox evaluation surveys
USG LMS Sandbox Evaluation Survey
  Type: LMS Sandbox Standard Report
  Date: 4/18/2011
  Time Zone in which Dates/Times Appear: (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
  Total number of responses collected: 661



1: What Institution do you represent? (Institution:)
(Respondents were limited to brief text responses)
Response                           Chart               Frequency   Count

Georgia State University                               5.3%        35
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural
                                                       1.8%        12
College
Georgia Perimeter College                              4.5%        30

RESA                                                   0.3%        2
Southern Polytechnic State
                                                       1.8%        12
University
Georgia Highlands College                              2.4%        16

Gainesville State College                              4.1%        27

Bainbridge College                                     2.6%        17

Waycross College                                       3.9%        26

University of Georgia                                  2.1%        14

Macon State College                                    4.1%        27
Georgia Health Sciences
                                                       2.3%        15
University
Georgia College & State
                                                       1.5%        10
University
WebMBA                                                 1.4%        9



Created using Vovici
Georgia Southwestern State
                                4.5%   30
University
East Georgia College            2.7%   18

Gordon College                  1.1%   7

University of West Georgia      2.9%   19

Darton College                  3.5%   23

Augusta State University        0.9%   6

Valdosta State University       7.9%   52

Kennesaw State University       5.4%   36

USG Outreach (Best Practices)   0.5%   3

Columbus State University       1.7%   11

Middle Georgia College          2.6%   17

SREB                            2.0%   13

Savannah State University       0.5%   3

Albany State University         2.4%   16

Atlanta Metropolitan College    3.5%   23

USG Training Initiatives        1.1%   7

College of Coastal Georgia      0.5%   3

Clayton State University        0.3%   2
Alternative Media Access
                                0.8%   5
Center (AMAC)
North Georgia College & State
                                1.7%   11
University
Armstrong Atlantic State
                                3.2%   21
University


Created using Vovici
GeorgiaONmyLINE                       2.4%       16

Fort Valley State University          2.0%       13

Georgia Southern University           5.7%       38

Georgia Gwinnett College              1.7%       11

South Georgia College                 0.5%       3

Other Responses                       0.3%       2

                               Valid Responses   661

                               Total Responses   661




Created using Vovici
2: Are you an Student or Instructor?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
3: Did you evaluate Blackboard Learn 9?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
4: Blackboard Learn 9 Instructor Evaluation (Test Results)




Actions:
   Create a course
   Create a section within a course
   Import content
   Create a quiz
   Create an assignment
   Grade an assignment
   Work in the gradebook
   Work in the discussion/forum/blog



Created using Vovici
Created using Vovici
5: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Blackboard Learn 9)for adoption?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
6: Did you evaluate Desire2Learn?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
7: Desire2Learn Instructor Evaluation (Test Results)




Actions:
 Create a course
 Create a section within a course
 Import content
 Create a quiz
 Create an assignment
 Work in the gradebook
 Work in the discussion/forum/blog




Created using Vovici
Created using Vovici
8: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Desire2Learn) for adoption?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
9: Did you evaluate Moodle?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
10: Moodle Instructor Evaluation (Test Results)




Actions:
   Create a course
   Create a section within a course
   Import content
   Create a quiz
   Create an assignment
   Grade an assignment
   Work in the gradebook
   Work in the discussion/forum/blog




Created using Vovici
Created using Vovici
11: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Moodle) for adoption?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
12: Did you evaluate Pearson LearningStudio?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
13: Pearson LearningStudio Instructor Evaluation (Test Results)




Actions:
    Create a course
    Create a section within a course
    Import content
    Create a quiz
    Create an assignment
    Grade an assignment
    Work in the gradebook
    Work in the discussion/forum/blog




Created using Vovici
Created using Vovici
14: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Pearson LearningStudio) for adoption?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
15: Did you evaluate Sakai?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
16: Sakai Instructor Evaluation (Test Results)




Actions:
    Create a course
    Create a section within a course
    Import content
    Create a quiz
    Create an assignment
    Grade an assignment
    Work in the gradebook
    Work in the discussion/forum/blog




Created using Vovici
Created using Vovici
17: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Sakai) for adoption?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
18: Did you evaluate Blackboard Learn 9?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
19: Blackboard Learn 9 Student Evaluation (Test Results)




Actions:
     Setup student profile
     View course content
     Submit assignment
     View grades
     Work in discussion/forum/blog tools
     Test email notifications
     Test search capabilities




Created using Vovici
Created using Vovici
20: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Blackboard Learn 9)for student adoption?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
21: Did you evaluate Desire2Learn?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
22: Desire2Learn Student Evaluation (Test Results)




Actions:
  Setup student profile
  View course content
  Submit a quiz
  Submit assignment
  View grades
  Work in the discussion/forum/blog tools
  Test email notifications
  Test search capabilities




Created using Vovici
Created using Vovici
23: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Desire2Learn)for student adoption?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
24: Did you evaluate Moodle?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
25: Moodle Student Evaluation (Test Results)




Actions:
    Setup student profile
    View course content
    Submit a quiz
    Submit assignment
    View grades
    Work in the discussion/forum/blog tools
    Test email notifications
    Test search capabilities




Created using Vovici
Created using Vovici
26: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Moodle)for student adoption?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
27: Did you evaluate Pearson LearningStudio?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
28: Pearson LearningStudio Student Evaluation (Test Results)




Actions:
     Setup student profile
     View course content
     Submit a quiz
     Submit assignment
     View grades
     Work in the discussion/forum/blog tools
     Test email notifications
     Test search capabilities



Created using Vovici
Created using Vovici
29: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Pearson LearningStudio) for student adoption?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
30: Did you evaluate Sakai?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
31: Sakai Student Evaluation (Test Results)




Actions:
     Setup student profile
     View course content
     Submit a quiz
     Submit assignment
     View grades
     Work in the discussion/forum/blog tools
     Test email notifications
     Test search capabilities



Created using Vovici
Created using Vovici
32: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Sakai) for student adoption?
(Respondents could only choose a single response)




Created using Vovici
USG LMS Sandbox Evaluation Survey
    Type: USG LMS Task Institutional Report
    Date: 4/18/2011
    Time Zone in which Dates/Times Appear: (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
    Total number of responses collected: 661



5: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Blackboard Learn 9)for adoption?
(Key: Top, Neutral, Bottom, N/A)
2                      Chart                               Top     Neutral     Bottom   Total   Mean

Student                                                    0       0           0        0       0.000
                                                                                        100.0
                                                           0.0%    0.0%        0.0%
                                                                                        %
Instructor             75.3%                               192     28          35       255     2.027
                                                                                        100.0
                                                           75.3%   11.0%       13.7%
                                                                                        %

20: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Blackboard Learn 9)for student adoption?
(Key: Top, Neutral, Bottom, N/A)
2                      Chart                               Top     Neutral     Bottom   Total   Mean

Student                64.5%                       21.5%   78      17          26       121     2.405
                                                                                        100.0
                                                           64.5%   14.0%       21.5%
                                                                                        %
Instructor                                                 0       0           0        0       0.000
                                                                                        100.0
                                                           0.0%    0.0%        0.0%
                                                                                        %

8: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Desire2Learn) for adoption?
(Key: Top, Neutral, Bottom, N/A)
2                      Chart                               Top     Neutral     Bottom   Total   Mean

Student                                                    0       0           0        0       0.000


Created using Vovici
                                                                                        100.0
                                                          0.0%       0.0%      0.0%
                                                                                        %
Instructor             67.1%                              149        34        39       222     2.230
                                                                                        100.0
                                                          67.1%      15.3%     17.6%
                                                                                        %

23: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Desire2Learn)for student adoption?
(Key: Top, Neutral, Bottom, N/A)
2                      Chart                              Top        Neutral   Bottom   Total   Mean

Student                70.8%                              80         19        14       113     2.088
                                                                                        100.0
                                                          70.8%      16.8%     12.4%
                                                                                        %
Instructor                                                0          0         0        0       0.000
                                                                                        100.0
                                                          0.0%       0.0%      0.0%
                                                                                        %

11: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Moodle) for adoption?
(Key: Top, Neutral, Bottom, N/A)
2                      Chart                              Top        Neutral   Bottom   Total   Mean

Student                                                   0          0         0        0       0.000
                                                                                        100.0
                                                          0.0%       0.0%      0.0%
                                                                                        %
Instructor             28.7%       58.3%                  62         28        126      216     3.532
                                                                                        100.0
                                                          28.7%      13.0%     58.3%
                                                                                        %

26: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Moodle)for student adoption?
(Key: Top, Neutral, Bottom, N/A)
2                      Chart                              Top        Neutral   Bottom   Total   Mean

Student                24.8%        57.5%                 28         20        65       113     3.504
                                                                                        100.0
                                                          24.8%      17.7%     57.5%
                                                                                        %


Created using Vovici
Instructor                                                 0        0         0        0       0.000
                                                                                       100.0
                                                           0.0%     0.0%      0.0%
                                                                                       %

14: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Pearson LearningStudio) for adoption?
(Key: Top, Neutral, Bottom, N/A)
2                      Chart                               Top      Neutral   Bottom   Total   Mean

Student                                                    0        0         0        0       0.000
                                                                                       100.0
                                                           0.0%     0.0%      0.0%
                                                                                       %
                                    19.3
Instructor             37.7%                 43.0%         78       40        89       207     3.251
                                    %
                                                                                       100.0
                                                           37.7%    19.3%     43.0%
                                                                                       %

29: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Pearson LearningStudio) for student adoption?
(Key: Top, Neutral, Bottom, N/A)
2                      Chart                               Top      Neutral   Bottom   Total   Mean
                                           19.3
Student                51.4%                       29.4%   56       21        32       109     2.743
                                           %
                                                                                       100.0
                                                           51.4%    19.3%     29.4%
                                                                                       %
Instructor                                                 0        0         0        0       0.000
                                                                                       100.0
                                                           0.0%     0.0%      0.0%
                                                                                       %

17: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Sakai) for adoption?
(Key: Top, Neutral, Bottom, N/A)
2                      Chart                               Top      Neutral   Bottom   Total   Mean

Student                                                    0        0         0        0       0.000
                                                                                       100.0
                                                           0.0%     0.0%      0.0%
                                                                                       %
Instructor             34.7%       19.1    46.2%           69       38        92       199     3.281



Created using Vovici
                                   %
                                                                                       100.0
                                                           34.7%    19.1%     46.2%
                                                                                       %

32: Overall, do you recommend this platform (Sakai) for student adoption?
(Key: Top, Neutral, Bottom, N/A)
2                      Chart                               Top      Neutral   Bottom   Total   Mean

Student                52.8%            20.8%   26.4%      56       22        28       106     2.566
                                                                                       100.0
                                                           52.8%    20.8%     26.4%
                                                                                       %
Instructor                                                 0        0         0        0       0.000
                                                                                       100.0
                                                           0.0%     0.0%      0.0%
                                                                                       %




Created using Vovici
                           Appendix 9
Task force sandbox evaluation rubric form and summary of results
                                                  Blackboard 9                                         Desire2Learn                                                     Moodle




                                         Doesn't Meet




                                                                                               Doesn't Meet




                                                                                                                                                     Doesn't Meet
                                                                Exceeds




                                                                                                                      Exceeds




                                                                                                                                                                            Exceeds
                                                                          Superior




                                                                                                                                Superior




                                                                                                                                                                                      Superior
                                                                                     average




                                                                                                                                           average




                                                                                                                                                                                                 average
                                                        Meets




                                                                                                              Meets




                                                                                                                                                                    Meets
Areas of Consideration

Teaching and Learning
Communication/Collaboration Features             0         1        2          3       1.55            0         1        2          3       1.47            0         1        2          3       0.58
 - Calendar                                      1         6        2          4       1.69                      2        6          4       2.17            5         5        2                  0.75
 - Announcements                                           6        5          1       1.58                      5        6          1       1.67            4         8                           0.67
 - Course email                                  1         6        3          1       1.36                      4        7          1       1.75            6         6                           0.50
 - Discussions                                             3        5          4       2.08                      2        7          3       2.08            2         9        1                  0.92
 - Chat                                          3                  6          1       1.50            2         4        5          1       1.42            5         6                           0.55
 - Whiteboard                                    4         6        1                  0.73            4         4        2          1       1.00            8         2                           0.20
 - Groups                                                  3        5          3       2.00                      6        5          1       1.58            3         8        1                  0.83
 - Wikis                                                   4        4          1       1.67            3         6                           0.67            6         5                   1       0.67
 - Blogs                                                   6        4                  1.40            2         3        3          1       1.33            6         5                           0.45
 - Mobile messaging                                        6        2          1       1.44            2         4        2                  1.00            7         2                           0.22
Ease of Use Comments:


Content Features                                                                       1.41                                                  1.66                                                  0.67
 - File types supported                                    6        5          1       1.58                      5        5          2       1.75            2         8                   1       1.00
 - Ease of integrating media (a/v)               1         3        8                  1.58                      4        6          1       1.73            4         6                           0.60
 - Ease of linking to a Web site                 1         4        7                  1.50                      4        6          1       1.73            2         7        1                  0.90
 - Creating a page                               1         4        6          1       1.58                      5        6          1       1.67            3         5        3                  1.00
 - File upload (one file/zipped)                           6        4          2       1.67                      7        4          1       1.50            2         9                           0.82
 - File Manager/folder structure                           8        3          1       1.42                      6        5          1       1.58            2         9        1                  0.92
 - File sharing between class sections           2         3        4                  1.22            3         3        2          1       1.11            4         4        1                  0.67
 - Learning Modules design/flexibility           1         4        6          1       1.58                      1        6          5       2.33            5         6        1                  0.67
 - Content Management                                      6        4          1       1.55                      2        6          2       2.00            5         6                           0.55
   --Create from Master Course?                            4        5                  1.56                      5        3          1       1.56            4         4                           0.50
 - Portfolios                                    1         8        2                  1.09                      6        2          2       1.60            9         2                           0.18
 - Student workspace                             3         4        2                  0.89            1         3        5          2       1.73            7         2        1                  0.40
 - Glossary                                      1         8        3                  1.17                      9        2          1       1.33            7         3        1                  0.45
Ease of Use Comments:



   Values in the cells are the number of people who gave that ranking
   "Average" column is a weighted average with "Does Not Meet" = 0, "Meets" = 1,
   "Exceeds" = 2, "Superior" = 3.
                                                    Blackboard 9                                         Desire2Learn                                                     Moodle




                                           Doesn't Meet




                                                                                                 Doesn't Meet




                                                                                                                                                       Doesn't Meet
                                                                  Exceeds




                                                                                                                        Exceeds




                                                                                                                                                                              Exceeds
                                                                            Superior




                                                                                                                                  Superior




                                                                                                                                                                                        Superior
                                                                                       average




                                                                                                                                             average




                                                                                                                                                                                                   average
                                                          Meets




                                                                                                                Meets




                                                                                                                                                                      Meets
Areas of Consideration

Assessment Features                                                                      1.42                                                  1.57                                                  0.59
 - Quizzes, Surveys                                          2        9          1       1.92                      3        8          1       1.83            3  7               1                  0.82
   --Modify by student?                                      4        3                  1.43                      5                   2       1.57            5  3                                  0.38
 - Database of questions                                     4        7          1       1.75                      4        7          1       1.75            4  5               2                  0.82
 - Selective Release/time control                  1         5        6                  1.42                      4        3          5       2.08            8  4                                  0.33
 - Import/export                                   1         9        1          1       1.17            1         5        5          1       1.50            2  9                                  0.82
 - Discussions for grades                                    5        5          2       1.75                      5        4          2       1.73            5  5               1                  0.64
 - Group assessments                               1         6        3          1       1.36            1         7        2          1       1.27            8  2               1                  0.36
 - Presentations                                   1         5        3                  1.22            1         5        2          1       1.33            3  6                                  0.67
 - Plagiarism detection tools                      3         4        1                  0.75            3         4                   1       0.88            6  2                                  0.25
 - Assignment Dropbox                                        8        3          1       1.42                      4        7          1       1.75            2 10                                  0.83
Ease of Use Comments:


Class Management Features                                                                1.46                                                  1.63                                                  0.79
 - Roster                                          1         7        3                  1.18            1         4        5                  1.40            2         6        2          1       1.18
 - Tracking reports                                1         5        5                  1.36                      5        6                  1.55            2         6        3                  1.09
 - Group management                                          5        4          2       1.73                      7        4                  1.36            2         8                           0.80
 - Selective release                               1         5        5                  1.36                      3        5          3       2.00            4         7                           0.64
 - Learning module/structure/flexibility                     3        6          1       1.80                      4        5          2       1.82            6         3                   1       0.60
 - Import/export/migration                         1         6        3          1       1.36                      5        5          1       1.64            5         6                           0.55
 - Design/structure flexibility                              6        4                  1.40            1         3        6          1       1.64            4         5        1                  0.70
Ease of Use Comments:


Gradebook Features                                                                       1.44                                                  1.55                                                  0.88
 - Import/export to Excel                                    9        3                  1.25                      6        4          1       1.55            2         6        3                  1.09
 - Flexibility of views                                      6        4          2       1.67                      6        4          1       1.55            3         7        1                  0.82
 - Workflow                                        1         9        1          1       1.17                      6        5                  1.45            3         7                           0.70
 - Customizeability                                          5        6          1       1.67                      5        5          1       1.64            2         8        1                  0.91
Ease of Use Comments:
                                                          Pearson                                                     Sakai




                                         Doesn't Meet




                                                                                               Doesn't Meet
                                                                Exceeds




                                                                                                                      Exceeds
                                                                          Superior




                                                                                                                                Superior
                                                                                     average




                                                                                                                                           average
                                                        Meets




                                                                                                              Meets
Areas of Consideration

Teaching and Learning
Communication/Collaboration Features             0       1          2          3       0.75            0         1        2          3       1.16
 - Calendar                                      5       6          1                  0.67                      5        5          1       1.64
 - Announcements                                 1       9          1                  1.00                      3        8                  1.73
 - Course email                                  3       6          2          1       1.08            2         6        2                  1.00
 - Discussions                                   4       7          1                  0.75                      7        4                  1.36
 - Chat                                                 10          1                  1.09                      6        5                  1.45
 - Whiteboard                                    6       4          1                  0.55            6         3        1                  0.50
 - Groups                                        2       8          1                  0.91            1         3        3                  1.29
 - Wikis                                         7       4                             0.36            1         6        3                  1.20
 - Blogs                                         4       7          1                  0.75            4         5        1                  0.70
 - Mobile messaging                              6       3                             0.33            3         5        1                  0.78
Ease of Use Comments:


Content Features                                                                       0.89                                                  1.44
 - File types supported                          1       8          1          1       1.18                      7        2          1       1.40
 - Ease of integrating media (a/v)               1       8          1                  1.00                      7        3                  1.30
 - Ease of linking to a Web site                        10          1                  1.09                      5        6                  1.55
 - Creating a page                               1      10          1                  1.00            1         6        4                  1.27
 - File upload (one file/zipped)                        11          1                  1.08                      7        4                  1.36
 - File Manager/folder structure                        10          1                  1.09                      8        2          1       1.36
 - File sharing between class sections           2       4          1                  0.86                      4        3          1       1.63
 - Learning Modules design/flexibility           4       6          2                  0.83            1         8        2                  1.09
 - Content Management                            3       6          2                  0.91                      7        2                  1.22
   --Create from Master Course?                  4       3          2                  0.78                      1        5          2       2.13
 - Portfolios                                    5       4          1                  0.60                      6        1          2       1.56
 - Student workspace                             5       4          1                  0.60            1         4        2          2       1.56
 - Glossary                                      6       3          1                  0.50                      6        3                  1.33
Ease of Use Comments:
                                                            Pearson                                                     Sakai




                                           Doesn't Meet




                                                                                                 Doesn't Meet
                                                                  Exceeds




                                                                                                                        Exceeds
                                                                            Superior




                                                                                                                                  Superior
                                                                                       average




                                                                                                                                             average
                                                          Meets




                                                                                                                Meets
Areas of Consideration

Assessment Features                                                                      0.89                                                  1.11
 - Quizzes, Surveys                                1         7        4                  1.25            1         3        7                  1.55
   --Modify by student?                            2         5        1                  0.88            3         4        1                  0.75
 - Database of questions                           2         7        3                  1.08                      4        6          1       1.73
 - Selective Release/time control                  3         4        5                  1.17            2         4        4                  1.20
 - Import/export                                   4         6        1                  0.73                      7        3          1       1.45
 - Discussions for grades                          8         2        1                  0.36            3         5        2                  0.90
 - Group assessments                               3         5        2                  0.90            5         3        1          1       0.80
 - Presentations                                   2         6        1                  0.89            3         4        2                  0.89
 - Plagiarism detection tools                      4         1        1                  0.50            5         1        1                  0.43
 - Assignment Dropbox                              1         8        3                  1.17                      7        2          1       1.40
Ease of Use Comments:


Class Management Features                                                                0.73                                                  1.28
 - Roster                                          3         6        2                  0.91                      8        2                  1.20
 - Tracking reports                                6         3        2                  0.64            2         4        2          1       1.22
 - Group management                                2         7        1                  0.90                      5        4                  1.44
 - Selective release                               4         5        2                  0.82            2         3        4                  1.22
 - Learning module/structure/flexibility           5         5        1                  0.64            1         5        4                  1.30
 - Import/export/migration                         6         4        1                  0.55                      7        3                  1.30
 - Design/structure flexibility                    5         5        1                  0.64                      7        3                  1.30
Ease of Use Comments:


Gradebook Features                                                                       1.14                                                  1.46
 - Import/export to Excel                          1         7        2          1       1.27            1         6        2          1       1.30
 - Flexibility of views                            1         8        2                  1.09                      5        4          1       1.60
 - Workflow                                        2         5        3                  1.10                      5        3          1       1.56
 - Customizeability                                3         4        4                  1.09            1         5        3          1       1.40
Ease of Use Comments:
                1.80


                1.60


                1.40


                1.20
                                                                                                                               Blackboard
                1.00                                                                                                           Desire2Learn
                                                                                                                               Moodle
                0.80                                                                                                           Pearson
                                                                                                                               Sakai
                0.60


                0.40


                0.20


                0.00
                                    s




                                                      es




                                                                          es




                                                                                                      s




                                                                                                                          es
                                     e




                                                                                                   re
                                  ur




                                                    ur




                                                                        ur




                                                                                                                        ur
                                                                                                  tu
                              at




                                                  at




                                                                       at




                                                                                                                      at
                                                                                              ea
                             Fe




                                                Fe




                                                                     Fe




                                                                                                                    Fe
                                                                                             tF
                         n




                                               nt




                                                                    t




                                                                                                                    k
                                                                 en




                                                                                           en




                                                                                                                 oo
                        io




                                           te
                         t




                                                                 m




                                                                                         em
                      ra




                                                                                                              eb
                                          on




                                                               ss
                   bo




                                                                                                             d
                                                                                       ag
                                         C




                                                             se




                                                                                                          ra
                 la




                                                                                      an




                                                                                                          G
                                                           As
                 ol




                                                                                     M
                C
            n/




                                                                                ss
           io




                                                                                la
      at




                                                                               C
      ic
   un
  m
 om
C




                             Does not meet = 0, Meets = 1, Exceeds = 2, Superior = 3
      Appendix 10
Guiding criteria document
Guiding Criteria

A. These criteria have guided our work up to this point:
The platform must:
   Be well-established and stable operationally.
   Be able to be integrated with a student information system
   Be committed to being fully compliant with accessibility laws and recommendations
   Meet basic functionality requirements of our current system.

B. These criteria will guide our work as we move into the next stage of our work:
The platform should:
   Satisfy the technical requirements set forth by the university system ITS department
   Allow the university system to provide necessary services while being fiscally
   responsible
   Offer advanced functionality and usability to our stakeholders
   Allow for integration with various third party solutions that our stakeholders expect to
   use in conjunction with the platform
   Have a future roadmap of product development that ensures that while the platform
   stays relevant and effective, it does not inflict painful migrations along the way
   Have a responsive and active support network, whether this is from a vendor
   company or from a community of users
   Offer access to the source code or to APIs, etc. to allow for internal USG technical
   experts to provide appropriate service to the system stakeholders
            Appendix 11
Finalist questions and demo requests
Functional Questions for Vendors  

Demo Portion: 

   1. How can classes/sections be created from a master course?  Please demonstrate. 
   2. How is content created?  Please demonstrate.   
       i.e.  webpage/text, assignments, quizzes 
   3. Please demonstrate your built‐in content creation tools such as the WYSWIG HTML editor 
   4. Please demonstrate how a quiz can be created via the following methods:            
              a. From within the system 
              b. Through applications such as Respondus 
              c. Via publisher testbanks 
   5. How can quiz settings be modified for a single student?  Please demonstrate. 
   6. How are quizzes completed by students and how are they graded? 
              a. How are written‐response (essay) questions graded?  Please demonstrate. 
   7. How are assignments completed by students and how are they graded?  Please demonstrate 
   8. Please show how mathematical expressions can be input by a student. 
   9. How are grades calculated and displayed in the grade book?  Please demonstrate. 
   10. How are rubrics created and used?  Please demonstrate. 
   11. How are plagiarism‐detection tools accessed and used?  Please demonstrate. 
   12. How can groups be created and used?  Please demonstrate. 
   13. What communication tools are available?  Please demonstrate any of the ones listed below and 
       any others you wish to show us: 
              ‐‐Are chat rooms with webcam support included? 
              ‐‐Is instant messaging included? 
              ‐‐Are wikis included? 
              ‐‐Are blogs included? 
   14. How is student activity tracked?  Please demonstrate. 
   15. How are publisher course cartridges loaded?  Please demonstrate or  illustrate. 
   16. Please demonstrate this platform’s mobile capabilities/features. 




                                                  
 

Q&A Portion: 

    1. Explain how master/child classes/sections works.  For example, suppose a master course is set 
       up with a number of children sections.  Can information (assignments/announcements/quizzes, 
       etc.) be sent down from master to some sections but not all, and without erasing anything that 
       has been done already in the child sections.  Similarly, can information be sent from child to 
       child section? 
    2. What types of content migration tools are available? 
    3. How do you handle audio/video content? 
    4. What tools are included for students? 
              ‐‐Portfolios? 
              ‐‐Workspace?  
    5. What does file storage/management look like from both the instructor and student perspective? 
    6. Are there student features for taking notes? 
    7. How do you integrate with the following third party solutions?   

            a. Wimba Classroom/Voice/ Pronto 

            b. Turnitin  

            c. Turning Technologies 

            d. Pearson’s MyMathLab  

            e. MapleTA  

            f.   Respondus LockDown Browser 

            g. Respondus  

            h. Smarthinking  

            i.   Others? 

    8. Please discuss browser/java requirements? What browsers/OS are supported?  What is your 
        process for certifying new versions? 
    9. Do you allow access to an API? 
    10. Do you have a “become user” or true superuser type account available for administrators? 
    11. Would you describe how your LMS can/does integrate with a student information system (ie 
        systems like Banner)? 
    12. Can course/student information be imported into your system? Is this a batch or realtime load?  
        If an import is a batch process, how are students and/or other instructors added after the batch 
        is complete? 
    13. Can grade/student information be exported from your system and loaded back into the student 
        information system? 


                                                     
14. Can guest instructors or visitors/mentors be added to the course (independent of the load from 
    the student information system)?  If so, how is their access to student's personal information 
    limited (contact information, grade information, etc.)? 
15. What other roles does the platform allow (instructional designer, TA, Lead TA, etc.)? 
16. Can a student (or instructor) limit what information can be seen about other students in a 
    course (student privacy concerns)?  For example, if a mass email is being sent to the students on 
    the class roster, will the email addresses be hidden from others participating in the course? 
17. Does the platform include a way to include pictures in the class roster? 
18. Can students access a tutorial/introduction to the LMS upon initial login? 
19. Is this platform compliant with Section 508c of the Rehabilitation Act?  What are the 
    accessibility features? 
20. Does this platform support real‐time captioning? 
21. Does this platform support live video feeds (remote sign language interpreting)? 
22. How can users with disabilities access this platform using text to speech software (JAWS, 
    VoiceOver), speech to text software (Dragon Naturally Speaking), and other accessibility 
    software (refreshable Braillers, electronic notetakers, etc.)? 
23. Does this platform offer text enlargement features for users with low vision? 
24. Does this platform use images for technical support?  Are alt tags used? 
25. Does this platform’s tutorial videos captioned?  Do they have video descriptors? 
26. Please discuss your mobile features and strategy. 
27. Please discuss the philosophy of upgrades and future versions – how complex is it to migrate 
    from one version to the next and how is the timetable of upgrades determined?  Is there 
    support for past versions if an institution decides not to upgrade on your timetable? 
28. Please discuss your product roadmap. 




                                                 
                   Appendix 12
Final overall rubric form and summary of results
                                              Blackboard 9   Desire2Learn   Moodle
Teaching and Learning
•Functionality
•Ease of use
•Accessibility
•Flexibility in roles
•Flexibility in use cases
•Ability to use third party plug-ins
•Integration with banner and other systems
•Mobility
•Browser/Java issues
Getting There
•Migrating  course content and tool
functionality from Vista
•Migrating content from other situations
•Training needs
•Implementation set up issues
Support and Community
•If commercial, responsiveness of vendor
•If commercial, availability of
support/timeliness of support from vendor
•If commercial, other add-ons, and other
product tie-ins
•If open-source, size and relevance of
community
•If open source, responsiveness of
community
•If open source, availability of commercial
affiliate support
                                                Blackboard 9   Desire2Learn   Moodle
•All – ability to support in-house at ITS and
on campuses
•All – infrastructure needs
Moving Forward
•Future roadmap in terms of functionality
•Frequency and severity of upgrades – needs
for frequent downtime/migration
•Ease of migration to future versions
Ease of migration to other products
Cost of Ownership
•Hardware  costs
•Human costs
•Implementation costs
•Support costs
                                              Pearson   Sakai
Teaching and Learning
•Functionality
•Ease of use
•Accessibility
•Flexibility in roles
•Flexibility in use cases
•Ability to use third party plug-ins
•Integration with banner and other systems
•Mobility
•Browser/Java issues
Getting There
•Migrating  course content and tool
functionality from Vista
•Migrating content from other situations
•Training needs
•Implementation set up issues
Support and Community
•If commercial, responsiveness of vendor
•If commercial, availability of
support/timeliness of support from vendor
•If commercial, other add-ons, and other
product tie-ins
•If open-source, size and relevance of
community
•If open source, responsiveness of
community
•If open source, availability of commercial
affiliate support
                                                Pearson   Sakai
•All – ability to support in-house at ITS and
on campuses
•All – infrastructure needs
Moving Forward
•Future roadmap in terms of functionality
•Frequency and severity of upgrades – needs
for frequent downtime/migration
•Ease of migration to future versions
Ease of migration to other products
Cost of Ownership
•Hardware  costs
•Human costs
•Implementation costs
•Support costs
                         Blackboard 9              Desire2Learn              Moodle             Pearson              Sakai
Teaching and Learning                   1.00                      1.72                  0.81              0.47                  1.50


Getting There                           2.00                      1.67                  0.33              0.00                  0.33


Support and Community                   0.90                      1.70                  0.60              0.50                  1.00


Moving Forward                          1.00                      1.00                  0.50              0.50                  1.00


Cost of Ownership                       1.50                      1.75                  1.00              1.67                  1.00

   Does not meet = 0, Meets = 1, Exceeds = 2, Superior = 3

                        First Choice           Second Choice             Third Choice          Fourth Choice     Fifth Choice
Teaching and Learning   Desire2Learn           Sakai                     BlackBoard 9          Moodle            Pearson

Getting There           BlackBoard 9           Desire2Learn              Moodle/Sakai                            Pearson

Support and Community   Desire2Learn           Sakai                     BlackBoard 9          Moodle            Pearson

Moving Forward          Bb9/D2L/Sakai                                                          Moodle/Pearson

Cost of Ownership       Desire2Learn           Pearson                   Blackboard 9          Moodle/Sakai
                  Appendix 13
Relative costing information and considerations
There are many components in the total cost of ownership of a learning management
system. The primary ones used by ITS to provide cost estimates are:
 •     License fees – these include the base fee along with some bundled services
 •     Hardware costs
 •     Personnel costs – for hardware support, software support, system administration,
       etc.
 •     Training costs – both for ITS staff and for training of the trainers at the
       institutions
 •     Course and content migration support
 •     Integration costs – both with third party services and for customization at the
       different institutions
 •     Reporting costs
 •     End-user costs

For the purposes of task force deliberations, four primary figures were used:
 •      License fees
 •      Infrastructure costs
 •      Support personnel costs
 •      Total cost of ownership (as calculated by ITS)

Due to the ongoing nature of the negotiations and the need to keep some level of security
around those negotiations until the task force results are made public, the actual dollar
figures were estimated and then ranked from lowest to highest (in lieu of firm figures).
The task force feels that the other (non-cost related) support in favor of the task force
recommendations is strong enough that unless the actual rankings of the cost figures
changes dramatically that this estimation process is sufficient.

For the open source platforms, there are no license fees. However, it was recognized that
there are commercial affiliates for each of these platforms and that some of the costs
incurred for transition and implementation could be in the form of outsourcing rather than
in-house expenses. The task force did not differentiate between these two types of
expenses.

For two of the commercial platforms, there were two different options presented. For the
primary deliberations, in each case, the option of the most comprehensive offering from
the platform was considered. However, when discussing secondary recommendations in
the case of severe fiscal constraints, the more scaled back offers were considered. For
Pearson Learning Studio, this involved a new offer that we have been asked not to reveal
in a public document at this time. However, this is a new offering from Pearson, so it
was not checked during the reference checks and there is no assurance of reliability or
quality. Furthermore, it does not allow for ITS internal hosting and so it was not ruled
acceptable by the task force. For Blackboard, there is an offer to keep the same price as
is now in place ($590K) for an additional five years. This is a scaled back offer since the
USG would still incur the extra license fees for the add-on services that are used system-
wide (including for example Wimba/Elluminate, Connect, and Mobile). As noted in the
report, this is only an acceptable alternative if the over-riding constraint is money for
licenses. Note that if this solution is chosen then there must still be an investment in the
transition (migration and training), and either a heavy investment must be made in
hardware, or there will not be customization available for the individual campuses, which
is one of their highest priorities for the new LMS.

Here are the cost comparisons for the full offerings of each platform (0 - $0 cost, 1=
lowest, 5 = highest)

                                                                                        Total Cost 
                                                                                        of 
                            Infrastructure        Support Staff                         Ownership 
 LMS Offering               Costs                 Costs                License Costs    (5 years) 
 Blackboard Learn 9                           3                    3               1               2
 Desire2Learn                                 2                    2               2               3
 Moodle 1.9.11                                3                    4               0               4
 Pearson Learning Studio                      0                    1               3               1
 Sakai 2.7.1                                  3                    4               0               4

In the total cost of ownership over five years, the gap between Blackboard 9 and
Desire2Learn is currently estimated at about $1.3M. The same time period gap between
Desire2Learn and the open source platforms is estimated at $3.5M.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:10/13/2011
language:English
pages:173
Description: Vote Management System document sample