Using a Web Based Course Management System Is there anything in it for me?

1
Using a Web Based Course Management SystemIs
there anything in it for me?

• JQ JohnsonAcademic Education CoordinatorUniversi
  ty of Oregonjqj_at_darkwing.uoregon.edu
• Presentation at Australian Graduate School of
  Management, 15 March 2002

2
This presentation

• The University of Oregon technology environment
• UO experience deploying a web based course
  management system
• How can a CMS improve teaching? (examples from
  UO)
• Discussion whats in it for me?

3
University of Oregon environment

• Mid-sized (18000 students) research university
• Excellent network infrastructure
• Very small "distance education" component
• Moderately large group of faculty who are "early
  adopters"
• Slow adoption of web technology by mainstream
  faculty

4
Timeline of UO CMS project

• Need assessment (1996-1999) evaluated a variety
  of course management systems
• Evaluation (spring 1999) trial courses using
  WebCT and Blackboard
• Implementation (summer 1999-spring 2000)
  licensed Blackboard for pilot project
• Production (summer 2000) Blackboard becomes
  standard library service

5
The need

• Increase use of web-based instruction while
  reducing cost (particularly in large introductory
  courses)
• Introduce pedagogically sound uses of technology
• Find software tools that will make it easy for
  typical faculty to integrate web-based
  instruction into their courses
• Our primary goal enhance face-to-face courses
  rather than support true distance ed

6
What is a Course Management System?

• Integrated environment offering wide variety of
  features for teaching
• access control only enrolled students may view
  course
• easy web publishing of syllabus, lecture notes,
  etc.
• asynchronous communication announcements,
  threaded discussion, surveys
• synchronous communication chat room, virtual
  whiteboard
• online quizzes and gradebook
• collaborative workgroups

7
Commercial Course Management Systems

• Many vendors of commercial products. Market
  shakeout currently in progress
• Major products circa 1999
• Blackboard Courseinfo
• WebCT
• eCollege (also outsources management and
  development)
• Prometheus (recently purchased by Blackboard)
• TopClass
• etc.

8
Related Products

• Courseware development tools
• Web publishing Microsoft FrontPage, Adobe
  GoLive, Macromedia Dreamweaver, etc.
• Authorware, Dreamweaver Coursebuilder,
  Click2Learn Toolbook, etc.
• CMS addons, e.g. Respondus
• Publisher-provided CMS content
• Learning Management Systems
• Click2Learn Ingenium, Docent Enterprise,
  KnowledgeSoft, SABA, etc.
• Campus portal software
• Campus Pipeline, GoCampus, Angel, etc. (cf.
  http//www.futureu.com/vcomm/olx/products2review-p
  ortals.html)

9
A Blackboard CourseSitehttp//blackboard.uoregon.
edu/courses/PSY201JJF
10
Course Documents
11
Lecture Notes
12
Integrated discussion forum
13
Online quizzes
14
Evaluation of Course Management Systems

• Match with institutional goals
• Features
• Several good comparisons/reviews, e.g.,
  http//www.ctt.bc.ca/landonline/
• But features change with every new software
  release
• Costs/resources required
• License costs
• Hardware costs
• Personnel costs for management/support
• Personnel costs for developing course content

15
Evaluation (continued)

• Ease of use
• Best measured by direct experience
• Most vendors offer try before you buy, e.g.,
  blackboard.com
• Range of vendor-provided support services
• Site hosting? Course development? Campus
  integration? 24x7 end user support?
• Ease of integration into local environment
• Link to registration/student information system
• Integration with existing e-mail system
• Vendor stability

16
Evaluation University of Oregon experience

• Trial courses (spring 1999) using WebCT (locally
  hosted) and Blackboard (using blackboard.com)
• Both were successful, but
• faculty preferred Blackboard
• Bb licensing costs appeared lower
• Bb appeared to be a more credible vendor
• Chose Blackboard for pilot project, beginning
  summer 1999

17
Implementation at University of Oregon -- costs

• License for Blackboard (5,000/year)
• Local server, managed by library
• Pentium III 2x800MHz/ 2GB/140GB/Linux (total
  hardware cost, about 5,000)
• Replace with new hardware annually
• Support personnel (25,000/yr)
• 10 hrs/week administrator
• .1 FTE developer
• 4 hrs/week tech support

Total annual cost approximately US35,000
18
Implementation marketing to faculty

• Adoption was instructor-driven
• Advertising mostly word of mouth
• Marketing focused on large undergraduate courses
• We used vendor provided documentation, CD-ROM
  tutorial, and some locally written documentation
• We offered several workshops (2 hrs. to 2 weeks),
  usually combining Blackboard with more general
  discussion of teaching methods, plus lots of 1 on
  1 assistance

19
Implementation developing course materials

• Faculty develop their own materials
• Faculty Instructional Training Center provides
  guidance and resources, but not labor
• Some departments assign graduate student teaching
  assistants or clerical staff to Blackboard
  support and development

20
Results to date consistent growth in usage
21
Results to date a very popular tool

• I think it's a real tribute to the design of
  Blackboard that I was up and running after a four
  hour workshop. I've been impressed from the
  get-go.
• Elizabeth Hoffman InstructorArts
  Administration

• Statistics as of Nov 2001
• 9461 users (1/2 of university population)
• 253 courses
• Approximately 12000 student-course enrollments
• Approximately 250,000 web server hits/day
• Approximately 7000 sessions/day

22
Results to date examples

• Courses in a wide range of disciplines
• Art and Gender
• Intro to Business
• Introduction to Native American Literature
• Introductory Psychology
• Architecture
• Organic Chemistry
• etc.
• Adopters tend to cluster in particular
  departments
• Different instructors use different features
• Different instructors have different pedagogical
  goals

23
Features in heavy use

• Fill in the blanks easy web page creation
  (e.g., announcements, annotations)
• Posting lecture materials (html, MS Powerpoint,
  PDF, etc.)
• Threaded discussion forum
• Gradebook

24
Features in moderate use

• Online quizzes (usually low-stakes, e.g.
  self-assessment)
• Surveys
• Group communication features
• Student web pages
• Digital dropbox
• Integrated calendar, todo lists
• E-mail interface

25
Features generally not used

• Resource center (digital library)
• Chat tool
• Course cartridges (publisher-provided content)

26
Example Intro to Business (BA101W02)

• Large lecture course (1200 students/term) with
  minimal staff support
• Pedagogical goal Blackboard primarily used to
  improve/streamline course administration
• Course announcements
• Just in time lecture notes
• On-line self-assessments (quiizzes)
• FAQ (reduce demand for office hours)
• Posting marks securely

27
Example Finance Value thru Capital (BA318W02)

• Mid-sized lecture course (125 students)
• Pedagogical goal to create the optimum learning
  community thru wide variety of approaches.
  Blackboard used for
• Course announcements (more current than in-class)
• Copies of all handouts and lecture notes online
  for student convenience (just in case
  publishing)
• Online quizzes (avoids using valuable lecture
  time)

28
Example Introductory Psychology (PSY201JJFw01)

• Lecturetutorial. Pedagogical goal replace
  existing web site (used only for course
  documents), with support for
• Active learning
• Online practice quizzes (with answers, immediate
  feedback)
• Online demos, links to web resources, real-world
  applications
• Collaborative learning discussion forum as
  supplement to tutorial (f2f discussion) sections
• Creates sense of community despite lecture format
• Different students perform well on-line (e.g.
  non-native English speakers)
• Students generally more thoughtful when posting
  than speaking
• Allows interaction among students outside of
  normal class times

29
Example Arch 282/682, Harbor Hills Village
(Village)

• Architecture course designing a new housing
  complex
• Pedagogical problem how to conduct a meaningful
  (ecologically valid) review of student designs
  taking advantage of outside experts
• Used chat tool and electronic whiteboard to
  implement virtual design reviews
• I have 7-8 professionals around the country and
  in different parts of the world lined up to act
  as remote critics for my studio project. In
  order for them to interact with the students,
  these professionals can log on to blackboard in
  order to use the chat feature.

30
For more information

• This presentationhttp//darkwing.uoregon.edu/jq
  j/ presentations/sydney02.ppt
• University of Oregon Blackboard site
  http//blackboard.uoregon.edu
• UO Faculty Instructional Technology Training
  Center http//libweb.uoregon.edu/fittc/
• JQ Johnson jqj_at_darkwing.uoregon.edu