WebCT Upgrade Briefing ITEC Meeting

1
WebCT Upgrade BriefingITEC Meeting

• Pat Burns, AVPIIT
• January 30, 2006
• 300-430 PM
• 201 Administration

2
History of WebCT at CSU

• First implemented at CSU in 1998
• Aggressive upgrades since then to our current
  version, WebCT Campus Edition (CE) version 4.1
• Integrated access via the CSU portal, RamPoint
• Now Clicker and EZIP grader files are
  incorporated into the WebCT Gradebook
• Embraced by students, most of whom are in one or
  more WebCT courses
• Training re-vamped reaching more faculty
  increased usage of WebCT at CSU

3
WebCT Usage System Stats

• gt 3,100 course sections on server in Fall 05
• Active Fall 05
• 1,150 course sections
• 23,000 unique students (85)
• 67,000 student seats (3 courses/student)
• Significant examples
• CVMBS for a wide variety of courses
• M 160, 161 (Calculus)
• In Liberal Arts for courses taught by adjuncts

4
Why Consider a WebCT Upgrade?

• Learning Management System with Learning Objects
• Can package into courses, workshops, seminars
• Can implement distinct administrative domains,
  e.g. college specific, state employee training,
  engineering training and professional development
• Functional enhancements
• More user-friendly for faculty and learners see
  next slide
• Scalability
• New system will scale to meet projected needs,
  especially for outreach activities
• Operational enhancements
• Software life-cycle and timing of Banner
  implementation
• More robust, scalable architecture
• Hardware will need to be upgraded in 1-2 years,
  in any case
• Usage statistics for accreditation, training, and
  support

5
Functional Enhancements(Benefits to
faculty/course designers)

• Separate administrative communities, each with
  their own look, feel and administration
• Enhanced user interface for the designer
• Quick Start for course set-up
• Easy content upload file management
• Learning module flexibility
• Selective release management, more granular
• Communication improvements
• Quiz expansion
• Improved Gradebook grading options
• Student-focused performance reporting/tracking
• Moving toward student-centric focus

6
Distributed Support Environment the Content
Production Pipeline

• On-campus
• Outreach
• Demand
• Customers

The Driver
7
New WebCT Architecture- Scalable and Robust
Front end
Back end
Load Balancer
Oracle Database Server
Internet
Load Balancer
Learning Object Database
Users
Courses, workshops, seminars
8
One-time Costs for a WebCT Upgrade Tentative
These costs would need to be covered by a budget
request. DCE has agreed to cover half of the
one-time costs.
9
WebCT Vista Recurring Costs Tentative

• WebCT CE 6 Community Manager.
• Add PowerSight (usage statistics).
• Full WebCT Vista version.
• Propose to cover these costs from network
  chargeback, and DCE over time.

10
Analysis

• The campus could continue to operate the current
  version of WebCT for 2-3 more years, with modest,
  on-campus growth
• However, operations could become a real
  struggle
• The current version is not scalable to meet
  emerging needs, especially for distance education
• A 1-year implementation effort is required
• On campus and DCE would benefit from an upgrade
• DCE would fund ½ of the one-time costs, the other
  half would need to be funded from another source
• Network chargeback may be used to fund the
  recurring costs, until DCE revenue increases
  sufficiently to contribute 50 or more, but still
  some disagreement about this source

11
CU Boulder Plan Upgrade for Fall 06

• -------- Original Message -------- Subject
  CIO WebCT CE 6 Deployments? Date Thu, 29 Dec
  2005 093234 -0700 From Jonathan L. Giltner
  ltJon.Giltner_at_COLORADO.EDUgt Reply-To The
  EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv
  ltCIO_at_LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDUgt To
  CIO_at_LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU As a follow-on to
  Mike Merrill's query about migrating from WebCT
  CE 4 (I'd be interested in any replies), who has
  deployed or is in the process of deploying WebCT
  CE 6? We'd like to share experiences with folks
  who are further along than us (we'll be moving
  from CE 4 to CE 6 for the Fall '06 term). If
  you've deployed CE 6 and wouldn't mind a few
  "What choice did you make here and why?" type
  questions, please e-mail me with who would be the
  appropriate person(s) to contact at your school.
  Thanks, Jon Giltner, Director of IT
  Architecture, University of Colorado at Boulder

12
Summary

• 1-time request of 267,220 tendered for
  discussion
• 133,610 each from central and DCE
• Major benefits
• Next Generation Learning Management System
• Easier to use
• Scalable and robust
• Keeping up with CU Boulder
• Proactive approach to obsolescence
• The degree to which the colleges commit to
  produce content should be a principal discussion
  item in making a value judgment