Building CSU System-Wide LMS Services using Moodle
San Francisco State UniversityAndrew Roderick, Technology Development and Support Manager
CSU Chancellor’s OfficeKathy Fernandes, Director of System-Wide LMS InitiativesJohn Whitmer, Associate Director of System-Wide LMS Initiatives
PASTHistorical background of Moodle collaboration within the CSU system
CSU Demographicshttp://calstate.edu
23 campuses Approx. 433,000 FTE students 44,000 faculty and staff We are the largest, the most diverse, & one of the
most affordable university systems in the country We play a vital role in the growth & development of
California's communities and economy
About California State University (CSU)
• ~75,000 courses per semestero ~40% had online
components in 2009
About California State University (CSU)
• 28+ server installations of 10 different versions of 4 different LMS platforms in 2009
CE 4CE 6.1CE 6.2.3Vista 8
1.9.41.9.5
Bb 7.2Bb 7.3Bb 8Bb 9
Early adopter Moodle Campuses
Four campuses use Moodle asthe exclusive LMS:
• San Francisco State - 2007• Humboldt State - 2007• CSU Monterey Bay - 2009• CSU Maritime - 2009
San Francisco State University
• 1,500 faculty and 30,000 students• 2,400 courses• Branded as iLearn• Moodle 1.9.9 in Fall• Customized gradebook, course archive, file
system, custom integrations• Mature systems and code management
processes
Stages of CSU Moodle collaboration
• Competitive
• Cooperative
• Collaborative
CSU Moodle Coalition was the context for cooperation.
CSU LMSS is the step toward collaboration.
PRESENTOverview of CSU System-wide Learning Mgmt Systems & Services
CSU Campus LMS Usage (2010)
Overview of System-wide Processes
Perform LMS RFI and RFP (2008-2009) Define LMSS Strategy (2009-2010) Implement Governance (2010-2011) Create Collaborative Projects that Benefit
Multiple Campuses (2010-)
System-wide LMSS Strategy
1. LMS Futures Group (Provosts, CIOs, Faculty) prepared 4 documents (http://dat.cdl.edu):– LMS Critical Elements– External Scan of Market & Higher Ed Systems– CSU System-wide Recommendations– LMS Governance Recommendations
2. Organize stakeholders to implement recommendations, starting with Moodle
System-wide LMS Governance
Identified Project Areas for 2010
1. Governance implementation and revision
2. Common licensing (lms, integrations, etc.)
3. Common Moodle codebase (mixed hosting)
4. Integrations – library, MERLOT, web conferencing, lecture capture
5. Migration, training
Future: shared help desk / support And other activities that governance identifies …
CSU Moodle Collaborations
Stages of Adoption/Interest
Mature New Production Pilot LMS Assessment Moodle-curious
Moodle Common Interest Group (CIG)
Forming in Fall 2010 Informational/Community and
Production/Deliverables based Open Participation + Working Groups Steered by Governance (S&PG) Broad Stakeholders (IT, AT, ID, Developers, etc.) Balance local campus needs w/ economies of
scale, common development
Community Building is like Watercolor
It’s About Balance
Campus Needs vs. Central Opportunities Vendor Hosted + Self-Hosted Needs Based on Stage of Adoption Differences in Stakeholder Perspectives Differences in Campus Environments/Size Differences in Resources and Compentencies
Discovery
How do we work with each other? How do we work with other initiatives? How do we work with others (external
institutions)? How do we work with moodle.org (core)? How do we work with vendors?
Common Code Base
End goal is stable, effective build running in a campus environment – this means interdisciplinary participation.
CSU Distribution centrally tested and managed Locally tested and customized for environments Scaled for performance across campus size Agreed upon components, add-ons More to come…
CSU-wide Initiatives
Purpose-built for the CSU Local Infrastructure Integrations Accessible Technology Initiative CSU Library Initiatives (Xerxes, etc.) Merlot Fresca Digital Marketplace/Affordable Learning
Solutions
Models, Ideas
Key Questions to Address Common codebase process – change
management framework, QA, requirements definition … in decentralized, opt-in environment
Readiness and participation “requirements” – in-kind or $$$? Recognize diverse existing investments/resources
Defining economic value and metrics – increase efficiency/VOI, not cash savings
Communication plan – addressing diverse stakeholders w/o attending every meeting
Contact Information
SF State Andrew Roderick ([email protected])
Technology Development Manager
Chancellor’s OfficeKathy Fernandes ([email protected])
Director of System-Wide LMS Initiatives
John Whitmer ([email protected])Associate Director of System-Wide LMS Initiatives