For the latest news about Moodle at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, go to the official Moodle site:
This is where we are posting information about Moodle, the transition to Moodle, and our developing collection of Moodle documentation. This is also the place where you log in if you are teaching or taking a course in Moodle.
To the Amherst campus faculty:
I am writing today with information concerning an important change the
campus will be making in its instructional technology over the next two
years. As outlined in previous emails, the Blackboard company will
cease support for the current system behind SPARK, Blackboard Vista, in
January 2013. Over the past seven months, a committee of faculty and
staff has been evaluating options for the next learning management
system (LMS) on campus. Based on their evaluations and further
discussion in Academic Affairs and OIT, the Provost and I have decided
that UMass Amherst will move to Moodle, an open-source LMS, over the
next two years.
While recognizing that the transition to Moodle will be more complicated
than moving to the alternative Blackboard product for both the faculty
and the support staff, I believe Moodle better positions the campus for
the longer timeframe. We did well in WebCT and its derivatives for
approximately fifteen years, but the direction Blackboard has taken does
not, in my opinion, offer a strong positive future relative to the needs
of the campus. Moodle offers us opportunities for more local control and
innovation. To use a geographic analogy, I see moving to the Blackboard
product as moving deeper into a “box canyon”; going to Moodle may
require some effort to get out of the canyon now, but will place us on a
more expansive fertile plain for future benefit.
SPARK currently supports more than 1,100 instructors working in over
2,100 classes involving more than 23,000 students (each of whom likely
is taking several SPARK classes). Converting to an open-source product
such as Moodle will be a lengthy and complex project, requiring some
reorganization within Academic Computing and elsewhere in OIT as well as
the establishment of new oversight and advisory procedures. We are in
the process of developing a transition plan and hope to be able to put
out at least the first steps in such a plan to the campus over the next
few weeks. Fred Zinn and Bo Mack of OIT will be leading the transition
with Fred focusing on the application and Bo on the technical underpinnings.
Blackboard Vista will remain in service until the end of Fall 2012. In
Spring 2011, OIT will operate a very limited pilot in Moodle to assess
its features and determine what needs to be adjusted in order for it to
match, and in some cases surpass, the features of the current Blackboard
Vista system. Faculty interested in participating in the pilot and
evaluations should contact Fred Zinn via email at
futurelms@oit.umass.edu. Updates on the pilot and the development
process will be posted on the Future LMS blog
(https://websites.umass.edu/futurelms).
I recognize the continuing concern over possible divergence of direction
between the campus and UMassOnline (UMOL) regarding choice of LMS
platforms. Unfortunately, we felt the urgency to make a decision for the
campus did not allow us to await completion of UMOL’s review. I am
confident that UMOL understands the dilemma of faculty who wish to teach
in both systems so that, whatever direction UMOL takes regarding a LMS,
they will work closely with us to make the transition between those
worlds as seamless as possible.
Finally, I want to take this opportunity on behalf of the Provost and
myself to thank the Future LMS Committee for their efforts in our review
of LMS possibilities. We recognize the magnitude of the effort and also
feel that the level of review was appropriate and highly informative.
John Dubach
Chief Information Officer
This evaluation was submitted to the CIO and Provost on November 9, 2010. It included the text of this blog and the following summary of our findings.
Recommendation: In our review of the possible future Learning Management System (LMS) to replace Blackboard Vista in SPARK, we recommend considering two: Moodle and Blackboard 9.
Moodle would provide the campus with a simpler interface, more local control, and the potential for innovation, but would require a commitment of local resources and a shift in organizational structures.
Blackboard would provide a moderately easier transition for faculty in the short term, but would preserve many of the frustrating aspects of Vista: an awkward interface, a slow response to innovation, and poor customer service.
With regards to usability, we face the classic contrast between “ease-of-use” and “flexibility”. On the one hand, Blackboard 9 allows for maximum flexibility, but in doing so it presents an interface which at times is very complex and will require additional exploration, training and support. On the other hand, Moodle and Sakai both limit certain aspects of how a course can be put together, and thus are likely to be easier to use. Sakai in particular appears to have been designed with usability in mind. Several reviews at other universities have identified “ease of use” as a major factor in their decision to move to open source solutions.
All three systems have basic controls that allow instructors to control who can access different parts of a course. Blackboard 9 “selective release” controls are similar to the current Vista system, with a few more options – including a set of tools that can be specifically associated with a group to provide it with special collaboration opportunities. Moodle has more nuanced controls that base access on group membership or role in the course – including the ability to give instructor-type access to students within specific tools or contexts. Sakai is similar to Vista, but a bit more limited.
All three systems cover the basic needs of faculty who want to post PDFs, links, and other files. All offer some variation of access control. The big difference here is philosophical: Blackboard offers maximum flexibility, with associated complexity for instructors and students, while Moodle and Sakai impose a structure on the course which reduces flexibility, but makes it easier for users to find content. Multiple files can be uploaded at a time to all three options, but this is handled differently in each case.
In Blackboard, content can be posted in a variety of ways: on “pages” in the site or within tools, including the “learning module” which helps organize sets of content and activities within a single organized module.
In Moodle, all content is associated with a “block” in the center column of the page. These blocks can be organized in a variety of ways: in a sequence (by week) or by topic, even displayed one at a time. Content and activities are added to the site by adding them to a block. Collections of files can be easily provided by adding a “Directory” to a block and linking it to a folder in the file repository. There are two tools (“Book” and “Lesson” which replicate the functions of the “Learning Module” in Vista.
In Sakai, all activity and content on the site is associated with specific tools. Content such as files or links can be associated with activities (an attachment to an announcement in the Announcement tool, for instance) or delivered through the Resources tool (a file manager).
All three systems cover the basic needs of instructors who wish to communicate with their students about class activities: announcements, messages (mail), chat, etc.. As with Vista, Blackboard messages are “in-course” only, unless a user manually sets forwarding to an external account. Sakai and Moodle both send messages out to students’ email addresses, including updates when announcements are posted or other changes happen on the site. Blackboard and Sakai allow selecting of roles to receive messages (such as “all TAs”), Moodle only allows for sending messages to “all” or by individual selection. Sakai and Moodle both allow import and export of calendar data (for instance to iCal or another outside calendaring system), Blackboard 9 does not.
This is one area where we anticipate instructors will see improvements in features–although experienced users of the Vista gradebook will need to make some adjustments. All three systems do the basics and include the all-important import and export option.
Blackboard 9 offers many fixes of classic problems and many new features: better column editing, weighted grades, conditional formatting, etc.. The Vista “Grading Form (Rubric)” feature has changed, and it took a bit to find it in the new system. (There does not seem to be a similar feature in Moodle or Sakai).
Moodle offers a similar improvement over Vista, with “categories” of grades that can then be weighted separately (i.e. all items classified as “quizzes” equal 5% of a final grade), and a grouping mechanism that makes it easier for TAs to see only their own set of students.
Sakai’s grade book is a bit more limited; it is similar to Vista, but lacks some familiar features (for instance, letter grades must be created by converting a numeric score).
All three systems provide basic online “quiz” functionality and the most common forms of questions (multiple choice, numeric, short answer, etc.). Each option also provides unique features that can help with specific goals. One example is the flexible evaluation of answers that in Vista can be provided by inserting “regular expressions” into the answer key. Moodle and Sakai both have this exact option, while Blackboard provides a similar function by allowing for a range of answers to be included.
One concern we have for the transition is that, in our testing, no option (including Blackboard) converts the images in a quiz to the new platform. This means that we will need to develop a process specifically to assist instructors who need to convert large collections of image-based questions to the new system.
There are quite a few access controls that all three of the LMS quiz tools share, as well as reporting tools and options for accommodations. These are handled in slightly different ways in each of the systems but none of them are incredibly difficult or confusing.
All the systems have a basic “drop box” functionality for collecting files and integration with plagiarism checkers (such as Turnitin). Moodle and Sakai both offer the option for notifying instructors by email when a file is submitted.
Blackboard 9 is different from Vista in that grading of assignments is done through the gradebook and all scores must be numeric (no letter grades).
Sakai is very similar to Vista with some improvements on the settings for controlling submissions. In our testing we did not find selective release or group assignment controls.
Moodle’s assignment tool appears to be more limited and awkward to grade in a large classroom setting, although its use of groups to structure access to submitted assignments make it easier to manage TA access to submissions by section within a course. Using Moodle for large classes is not necessarily more difficult, it just requires some forethought to set up the assignments with groups.
Each of these assignment tools requires a specific thinking about how to structure assignments. Moodle assumes that you know what you will be receiving when you set it up (eg: offline work, pasted text, single file upload, or “advanced” or multiple file upload), whereas Blackboard is very simple (Name, Instructions, Points, and Dates available). Moodle gives a few more options, but the intent is to collect assignments so there are not too many options.
All three systems offer the basic features of a threaded discussion, journal and blog and allow attachments to be added to posts. Each system has a slightly different way of presenting and managing discussions, so each offers different useful features and possible limitations. Both Moodle and Sakai offer features that allow for notification and tracking of discussions through e-mail notifications–a feature long requested by students familiar with similar features in social media tools like Facebook.
Blackboard nine is quite similar to the current Vista, although terminology and interface have changed a bit. Moodle has features which make it easy to search, grade, rate, and track discussions. Moodle’s discussion grading system is based off of ratings, and allows for multiple ways to calculate grades for discussions. Sakai also offers special tools for looking at statistics on participants, assigning point values to posts, and an option for preventing a student from reading other student’s posts until submitting his or her own post.
If you have experience with the features of any of these systems and wish to chime in, please add them in comments below or send them to futurelms@oit.umass.edu.
The fourth of four posts about the options we have assessed: Blackboard 9, Moodle, Sakai and the Decentralized Option.
In this option, there is no central LMS; instead, instructors use distinct standalone tools based on what fits their need or goal. Such an option would likely be centered around existing OIT services such as: Blogs for announcements and course info, UDrive for sharing documents, and OWL for surveys and quizzes.
In early discussions exploring this option, the committee felt that it does not provide enough structure for instructors and students who wish to have the simplicity of a single “place to go” for online course materials and activities. However, some instructors will be interested in pursuing this option because of its flexibility. While most of it is possible using current tools, and will be possible no matter what LMS is chosen, it is important that any future LMS does not prevent instructors from exploring this option. In addition, an ideal future LMS should be able to integrate with other tools and provide some of the “centralized” functions that will help instructors tie together their activities on separate tools.
The key benefit of this option is that instructors are free to select whatever tool(s) best meet their needs. As an institution, if a tool on campus ceases to be effective, we can replace it without affecting all the other tools. The biggest concern about this option is that it lacks a central “place” for instructors and students to coordinate activities. For instructors, this option also lacks a central location to collect, calculate and post grades from all the online activities. Key question:
Most basic tools we need are already in use and supported on campus. However of all our options this would require the greatest amount of redesign by the greatest number of faculty. Everyone would need to rethink their courses and figure out how to communicate the new structure to students. Key questions:
The basic tools are already on campus. Tools can be added or removed without affecting the overall structure. Faculty with special needs can use off-campus or departmental services if central on-campus services don’t provide needed functions. FERPA and security are a key concern with this approach (especially if faculty shift to off-campus tools). Integration of multiple services would be added to the maintenance and modification requirements of each tool.
The third of four posts about the options we have assessed: Blackboard 9, Moodle, Sakai and the Decentralized Option.
Sakai is an open source LMS that is available for free and can be customized by programmers at an institution. There is an official version of Sakai that is maintained and supported by a consortium of institutions (mostly large universities). There are also commercial providers who will host and maintain Sakai instances for a fee. Courses are structured by activity or tool. (i.e. click Discussions to participate, rather than have discussions associated with a week or a topic.)
Course structure in Sakai is oriented around activity; for instance, all online discussions are accessed within the discussion tool space. This is especially different from Vista because all content is delivered through the “course content” tool rather than on customizable pages with headers and footers. While the simplicity and consistency will mean students will find it easier to shift from course to course, some faculty will feel limited by this structure. The current Sakai tool set is limited in some areas, but a significant rebuild of Sakai (Sakai 3) may be coming out in 2011. Key questions:
A direct and detailed comparison of LMS features will appear in upcoming blog posts.
Because Blackboard Vista courses are encrypted, there is no official method for transferring courses from Vista to Sakai. Even if we can locate a tool or process that makes the transfer easy, the difference in course structures will require most of the instructors using Spark to redesign their course sites in some way.
Sakai is an open source tool that was developed by several large universities, and thus may be more suited to the scale of campuses like UMass Amherst. In our initial installation of a test server, Sakai proved to be difficult to install. Also, some of its administrative functions lack an easy interface (requiring in some cases direct manipulation of the database to make simple changes). This leads to concerns that maintaining and manipulating Sakai may be more difficult than the other open source options. Key questions:
If you are interested finding out more about Sakai yourself. We recommend reviewing the handouts and tutorial videos at UCLA: http://www.oid.ucla.edu/units/tlc/tectutorials/sakaihttp://help.asu.edu/search/node/bb9
Comments are welcome! Please comment below and share any questions, concerns or things you like about Sakai.
The second of four posts about the options we have assessed: Blackboard 9, Moodle, Sakai and the Decentralized Option.
Moodle is an open source LMS that is available for free and can be customized by programmers at an institution. There is a “core” version of Moodle that is supported by a community of institutions and programmers who create modules and submit improvements. There are also commercial providers who will host and maintain Moodle instances for a fee. In Moodle, course content and activities are structured around a single page with a sequence of blocks down the center (typically organized by week, but other options are available).
The Moodle interface is simple and easy to learn. Its all-in-one-page structure will provide consistency between courses and make it easier for students to find what they need. However, some instructors will see this as a limitation on their ability to customize and create hierarchical “pages” of content. Out of the box, the Moodle tool set looks more limited than Blackboard’s; however, because Moodle is open-source and customizable we would have be ability to make changes as we see fit. Key questions:
A direct and detailed comparison of LMS features will appear in upcoming blog posts.
Because Blackboard Vista courses are encrypted, there is no official method for transferring courses from Vista to Moodle (although we have heard that some exist). Even if we can locate a tool or process that makes the transfer easy, the difference in course structures will require most of the instructors using Spark to redesign their course sites in some way. Key questions:
Moodle is based on PHP-MySQL, which is familiar to our current technical staff. It also runs on servers that are roughly equivalent to our current arrangement for Blackboard Vista. Schools like LSU have shown that Moodle has the capacity to work with large populations of students. Key questions:
If you are interested finding out more about Moodle yourself. We recommend reviewing the handouts and tutorial videos at Louisiana State University: http://moodle.grok.lsu.edu/http://help.asu.edu/search/node/bb9
Comments are welcome! Please comment below and share any questions, concerns or things you like about Moodle.
The first of four posts about the options we have assessed: Blackboard 9, Moodle, Sakai and the Decentralized Option.
Blackboard 9 is the latest version of the core LMS product offered by Blackboard Inc.. When Blackboard purchased WebCT in 2006, WebCT’s Vista LMS became Blackboard Vista. Vista is being discontinued, and Blackboard is asking all their Vista customers to switch to a new “hybrid” product that contains aspects of Vista and the original Blackboard LMS. Blackboard 9 is organized around a flexible template: links to content and activities can be accessed from a list of tools, or can be grouped on “pages” within the course.
Because Blackboard 9 is based in part on Vista and follows a similar interface philosophy, many users will find it to be familiar to use. However, like Vista, Blackboard 9 has a complex interface that allows maximum flexibility, but that can make it inefficient to use and difficult to figure out. Some features have been improved over Vista (such as the Gradebook) but there are other Vista features that are simply gone (such as Grading Rubrics).
A significant question is if Blackboard will continue its track record of not providing timely fixes and improvements. The interface does not take advantage of many more modern Web 2.0 features that students and instructors are familiar with from other tools such as Google and Facebook. Key questions:
A direct and detailed comparison of LMS features will appear in upcoming blog posts.
Although it was not available right away, there is a tool that converts courses from Vista to Blackboard 9. This should make it relatively simple to move instructors from one system to the other. Some reworking of course materials will be necessary because not all features are supported in the new system.
Because the system is complex, and not identical, instructors will need to spend time learning the new system and a few will be required to redesign their courses. Key questions in this area are:
Because Blackboard runs on familiar hardware, our current support group and infrastructure should be adequate for this system. Our primary concern in this area is that Blackboard, in the past, has not been very responsive to bug reports and requests for technical assistance. Key questions:
If you are interested finding out more about Blackboard 9 yourself. We recommend reviewing the handouts and tutorial videos at Arizona State University: http://help.asu.edu/search/node/bb9
Comments are welcome! Please comment below and share any questions, concerns or things you like about Blackboard 9.
The third of three posts about the requirements we’ve identified for a future LMS: Teaching, Transition, and Behind the Scenes.
OIT technical staff must be able to construct and maintain a stable and reliable service within the limits of staffing, budgets and technology. The system must integrate efficiently with Spire and related technology, and support requirements for security, performance and scalability.
Ideally, a new LMS would be architected to facilitate incorporation of future technology changes and innovations related to learning environments. A design approach that recognizes the inevitability and scope of such changes could increase the long term benefits from our investment in change at this time.
The second of three posts about the requirements we’ve identified for a future LMS: Teaching, Transition, and Behind the Scenes.
It needs to be as easy as possible for faculty to move current content and course practices to the new system.
Ideally, it should be possible for someone (instructor or staff) to simply “pack up” an existing Vista course and unpack it in the new system. Unfortunately, the “export course” features of Vista involve creating an encrypted proprietary zip file. We need to look at tools that could possibly help us extract content from an exported Vista course.
At minimum, we need to have tools or procedures in place that assist faculty with the transfer of content. Since the proprietary problem with Vista backups came to light, we have been advising faculty that the best way to “back up” their courses is to capture the content in an open standard or accessible file format and save it to their hard drives: e.g. exporting gradebook data as CSV, exporting “printable” views of their discussions, and extracting quiz questions using Respondus. While this method is the most stable over the long term, it is also the most time-consuming, so a direct transfer would be preferred.
Associated Requirement: the new LMS needs to provide the ability to transfer courses (or course content) between itself and other systems no matter what platform, or version, they are using. This is especially important to UMass Amherst faculty who teach CPE courses through the UMassOnline LMS (which is also currently Blackboard Vista and thus will also be changing by 2013.)
Associated Issue: how much disruption will we accept for the sake of a better long-term solution? Choosing a new LMS is an opportunity for getting something better than the current system, but this needs to be balanced with the disruption if the “better” system is very different. How much change is too much?