Assessment of Decentralized Option

The fourth of four posts about the options we have assessed: Blackboard 9, Moodle, Sakai and the Decentralized Option.

Definition

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.

Interface and Features

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:

• Could a tool be developed that provides a single login and gradebook features?
• We assume that the majority of faculty would prefer a centralized solution to the complexity of decentralization, is this true?

Transition

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:

• Could we develop tools to assist with the conversion of course materials?
• Would the redesign required by this option be too much work for instructors?

Behind the Scenes

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.

• What would it take to provide provisioning and course rostering for all these tools?
• What would it take to develop an on-campus service that would provide basic content delivery, gradebook, roster, and other missing functions?