WebCT Upgrade Briefing ITEC Meeting Pat Burns, AVPIIT January 30, :00-4:30 PM 201 Administration

January 30, 2006 Att. C - WebCT 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

January 30, 2006 Att. C - WebCT 3 WebCT Usage – System Stats > 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

January 30, 2006 Att. C - WebCT 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

January 30, 2006 Att. C - WebCT 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

January 30, 2006 Att. C - WebCT 6 Distributed Support Environment – the Content Production “Pipeline” Content Infrastructure Customers, Revenue On-campus & Outreach - Demand - Customers CPALI - Best practices Colleges - Content - Production (GTA teams) Coop. Extension - Distribution network CCS - Marketing - Advertising ACNS - Systems - Standards - User support The “Driver”

January 30, 2006 Att. C - WebCT 7 New WebCT Architecture - Scalable and Robust Users Learning Object Database Load Balancer Oracle Database Server Load Balancer Web & Application Server Web & Application Server Web & Application Server Web & Application Server Internet Front end Back end Courses, workshops, seminars

January 30, 2006 Att. C - WebCT 8 One-time Costs for a WebCT Upgrade – Tentative ItemCost 1. Oracle database$27, Hardware$164, WebCT Consulting$75, Total$267,220 These costs would need to be covered by a budget request. DCE has agreed to cover half of the one-time costs.

January 30, 2006 Att. C - WebCT 9 WebCT Vista Recurring Costs – Tentative I. UpgradeYear 1 1 Year 2 2 Year 3 3 Totals 4 1. WebCT license$78,875$104,049$130,000$312, WebCT maint./support$24,100$30,580$60,000$114, Oracle database$5,320 $15, Hardware maint.$0$6,500 $13, Totals$108,295$146,449$201,820$456,564 II. Keep current system 1. WebCT license$35,937$38,453$41,144$115, WebCT maint./support$18,000$19,260$20,608$57, Hardware maint.$15,000$20,000$25,000$60, Totals$68,937$77,713$86,752$233,402 1.WebCT CE 6 + Community Manager. 2.Add PowerSight (usage statistics). 3.Full WebCT Vista version. 4.Propose to cover these costs from network chargeback, and DCE over time.

January 30, 2006 Att. C - WebCT 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

January 30, 2006 Att. C - WebCT 11 CU Boulder Plan – Upgrade for Fall Original Message Subject: [CIO] WebCT CE 6 Deployments? Date: Thu, 29 Dec :32: From: Jonathan L. Giltner Reply-To: The EDUCAUSE CIO Constituent Group Listserv To: 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 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

January 30, 2006 Att. C - WebCT 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