1. 1 IMS of the Future by Lesley Blicker Director of IMS Learning and Next Generation Technology, Office of the Chancellor Presentation at the Chief Academic and Student Affairs Officers – Colleges and Universities Deans Meeting, May 28, 2009

2. 2 Charge of the IMS of the Future Work Group The charge of the IMS-F work group is to make recommendations regarding IMS options for the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system for September 1, 2012 and beyond. No assumption to be made yet that we will go off D2L. The work group will draft the system’s business requirements and evaluate the current IMS business/delivery model and make recommendations for going forward.

3. 3 Sponsorship IMS* of the Future (IMS-F) work group established under the auspices of the IMS Advisory Council. Student and faculty bargaining units have reps appointed to the Council Recommendations of the work group made to the IMS Advisory Council Close collaboration and consultation maintained with the MnOnline Council and bargaining units * IMS: Instructional Management System, such as D2L, Blackboard, eCollege, Moodle

4. 4 Scope of Work/Recommendations IMS Business or Delivery Model, which could include: – Number of IMS platforms which should be supported by the Office of the Chancellor – Hosting arrangements – Number of databases – Distributed vs. non-distributed solutions (focus on one piece of software vs. a combined set of software platforms)

5. 5 Scope of Work/Recommendations Recommendation of related/additional products critically needed in conjunction with an IMS (LOR, eReserves) Product evaluation and selection (Open Source vs. proprietary products, open vs. closed architecture) Pilots Technical support arrangements Funding sources to support recommendations

6. 6 2003: IMS (D2L) with Limited Integration IMS ISRSLDAP Portal

7. 7 2009: IMS with Many Technologies Digital Media System (streaming, CMS) eReserves LOR Web Conferencing IMS and Critically Needed Technologies (In Scope) IMS ISRS LDAP Portal eFolioRespondus IMS and Existing Technologies YouTube Wikipedia Google Docs eTextbooks iTunesU Facebook Wikis IMS Extensibility with Social Technologies

8. 8 Assumptions/Process Commitments Broad-based participation throughout the project; iterative input seeking from myriad stakeholder groups Multiple avenues for input (Wiki, WebEx sessions, regional or campus visits) Open, transparent communication process to be established

9. 9 Overriding Question to Answer What will mainstream faculty want to use?

10. 10 What’s Been Accomplished: Year 1 (targeted completion 8-31-09) Pre-planning Summer, early fall 2008 Work group formed; educate themselves about current data, Trends in IMSs and relevant technologies Fall 2008 Work group develops: 1.List of “what’s missing” 2.RFI questions Winter 2009 Work group: 1.Studies Open Source products 2.Develops process for faculty Input (questionnaire) and student Input (conferences) Winter 2009 Faculty and student input gathered Spring 2009 Open Source pilots recommended to IMS Council, approved Evaluate input into “business requirements” Summer 2009 Configure Moodle pilots

11. 11 Objectives Fiscal Year 2010 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Establish which pilots will be conducted, develop common measurements Conduct pilots Continue to gather input from stakeholders, conduct campus visits More in-depth study of available products against requirements

12. 12 Objectives Fiscal Year 2011 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Assessment of product and hosting options against requirements RFI and/or RFP Evaluation Selection of new IMS and hosting model

13. 13 Spring 2009 Fall 2009 Migration and Implementation (to be ready for 9-1-12) – Training – Begin migration, course conversions – Integrations (ISRS, LDAP) – System-wide support decisions – Develop SLAs Objectives Fiscal Year 2012

14. 14 Stakeholder Groups with Whom to Communicate and from Whom to Gather Input D2L Campus Site Administrators D2L Campus Trainers IMS Advisory Council CIOs, CAOs, Deans MnOnline Council/ Contacts Faculty Students eLearning Directors Customized Training Campus Visits Fall 2009

15. 15 What the Work Group Said Was Needed in a Future IMS Interoperability and extensibility (open architecture) to allow for integration with host of existing applications such as Web 2.0 apps, student-created content apps, live video conferencing, audio streams, etc. Better means of tracking learning outcomes to close the loop with accreditation reports – better analytical tools Blending or integrating with 3D virtual worlds

16. 16 What the Work Group Said Was Needed in a Future IMS Good interface/viewability for portable content, via cell phones, PDAs Easy content migration in and out of system Content independence, streaming media (have a system for that) Integration or better integration with electronic reserves. eFolio and ISRS (e.g., get grades back into it)

17. 17 Faculty Feedback Spring 2009 a similar questionnaire was issued to both MSCF and IFO faculty 558 IFO faculty responded (composite results made available) 746 MSCF faculty responded (results not ready yet)

18. 18 IFO Faculty Feedback on Tools Rated Highest (558 responses) >60% Email Gradebook Assignment submission News or front page posting features Quiz or exam Instructional notes (content management) 60% of respondents rated these tools as a 4 or 5, on a scale of 0-5, 5 being the most valuable

19. 19 Asynchronous text-based discussions (discussion board) Project or discussion groups Polls/surveys Content release controls 40% of respondents rated these tools as a 4 or 5, on a scale of 0-5, 5 being the most valuable IFO Faculty Feedback on Tools Rated Highest (558 responses) >40%

20. 20 Rubrics ( 35%) Video and audio podcasts ( 30.2%) Outcome-based learning tools ( 23%) Wikis (17%) IM or text chat (16.5%) Instructional Tools Rated Next Highest by IFO Faculty (558 responses) - Other Ratings indicate the percentage of people ranking these tools as a 4 or 5 on a 5 point scale (5 being most valuable)

21. 21 Clicker Response Systems ( 16.5%) Voice-based discussion (15%) Online whiteboard (14%) Online learning games (13.6%) Blogs ( 11.6%) Instructional Tools Rated Next Highest by IFO Faculty (558 responses) –Cont’d

22. 22 Being able to request features (58.2%) Importing course modules from publishers (56.9%) Integrating Web 2.0 tools via easy widget (48.1%) Using IMS to prepare department, programmatic or accreditation reports (45.7%) Course-based news feed (33.5%) Use IMS with handheld devices ( 29.8%) Integrating with immersive 3D environments (9.7%) Other Faculty Feature Ratings by IFO Respondents – 558 Responses

23. 23 IFO Respondents: Plans for Making Use of IMS Next 3 Years DecreaseSameIncrease Web Enhanced3.847.648.7 Hybrid6.445.548.1 Fully Online9.645.544.9

24. 24 Student Feedback Process Used – In conjunction with MSUSA and MSCSA, questions were developed by the IMS-F work group and distributed in advance of the two student spring conferences – Two breakout sessions per conference were conducted in focus group format. Input from approximately 80 students in total was obtained – Further input will be sought next year from students via campus visits

25. 25 Student Feedback Wide discrepancy in how faculty use IMS, wish they used it more consistently across any campus. Bothered that system is paying for it and most faculty don’t use it Want alerts! To cell phone, to email, anytime there’s something new to look at in the IMS (i.e., they missed a quiz) If have multiple classes, dislike you have to log into separate courses Reported on what they liked/disliked specific to D2L (paging takes forever, assignments rejected due to size – bugs)

26. 26 Student Feedback Want to access technologies right in IMS that you use for assignments Ability to email other students in class Teachers complain to them a lot about using IMS (D2L); they present it in a way that colors the students’ experience Many said they don’t want online elements in a face-to-face class (like taking an exam in the IMS at home) Geographic connection an issue – uneven depending where you access the Internet and how you access it