|
a branch of
ocotillo central
Papers...
Ocotillo research and recommendations
» 2002-2003Learning Management Systems
Ocotillo Chairs
about
goals
|
Ocotillo Position Paper 2002-2003: Learning Management Systems
State of the LMS (Learning Management Systems)
Sheila Brandt (Scottsdale),
Pat Case (Rio Salado),
Mary McGlasson (Chandler-Gilbert), and
Doug Sawyer (Scottsdale).
Position:
At Maricopa we are nowhere near a comprehensive LMS, and given that we don't seem to be faring very well even with our Course Management Systems, Maricopa needs to re-address its LMS/CMS options. In summary, we want improved instructional capabilities, easy-to-use without being so labor-intensive/tedious for the user, scalability/reliability to accommodate our rapidly growing student populations, expanded administrative capability, compatible/portable content, and pricing that won't drive us out of the market.
In order to assess the status of the Learning Management System (LMS) within the Maricopa Community Colleges, a survey was conducted asking each of the colleges for their feedback on the local "state of the LMS."
More specifically, each college was asked:
- what was working/not working with the current LMS
- what would they like to see in an LMS?
The survey response data has been organized in the two spreadsheets (see appendices) according to the criteria for evaluating an LMS, as defined in the companion "What is an LMS?" paper. Since the colleges in our district are still primarily using Course Management Systems, rather than the broader LMS, responses to the current status question apply more to the CMS, while feedback regarding what we'd like for the future may be more directly applicable to the concept of an LMS.
The responses to Question (1) have been used to establish an LMS Report Card for the District overall, in essence giving a current snapshot of the LMS status in Maricopa. The "Grade" column summarizes the current state of each of the criteria, established given the feedback from six of the ten Maricopa colleges. Indicators of future improvement or worsening are included, if applicable.
- At the lowest end of the report card are Pricing and Scalability, both receiving a letter grade of "D." Both categories have moved closer to crisis mode this year for Maricopa. Blackboard (Bb) in particular released its new licensing agreement (and the associated cost), bringing the realization that the colleges might get priced out of the market. At the same time, some of our colleges hit the maximum capability of the basic version of Bb, in terms of number of users, so that the reality of the scalability limitations surfaced.
- In the mid-range of the report card, Administrative Capability, Service and Vendor Stability, Compatibility and Interoperability, and Security all received a grade in the mid- to high-"C" range, indicating that these categories are adequate to meet the current needs, but that we haven't been "wowed" by them. On a good note, most of these categories have also received an "improving" indicator, meaning that there are indications that improvements are coming.
- At the highest end of the Maricopa report card, Instructional Competence, Ease of Use, and High Availability/Product Stability are in the mid- to high-"B" range, meaning that these areas are working well, with some problems that need to be addressed. For example, faculty members are generally pleased with the Instructional Competence component, but would like to see improvements to the gradebook and assessment features.
- No categories were given a failing grade, nor were any "As" given.
- The overall LMS Grade for Maricopa for all categories would be B-/C+
The responses to Question (2) are given in the "What Do We Want to See in an LMS?" spreadsheet. Again, those features that we at Maricopa are interested in are organized according to the LMS evaluation criteria. In summary, we want improved instructional capabilities, easy-to-use without being so labor-intensive/tedious for the user, scalability/reliability to accommodate our rapidly growing student populations, expanded administrative capability, compatible/portable content, and pricing that won't drive us out of the market.
Now that you have read this paper, take it to the next level by participating / commenting in the online discussion
 Learning Management Systems Overview
Adobe Acrobat file: lms_overview.pdf [92k]
Learning Management Systems paper
printable version of this paper, includes LMS overview and both appendices
Adobe Acrobat file: lms.pdf [300k]
Appendix 1: What do We Want in an LMS?
printable version of survey results
Adobe Acrobat file: lms_wants.pdf [52k]
Appendix 2: LMS Grades
printable version of survey results
Adobe Acrobat file: lms_grades.pdf [64k]
|
