I've been asked to comment on (parts of) a draft [LMS Trial Report]. My general comments follow.
Recommendations: A 2nd LMS Trial Semester
Janison has clearly been eliminated as an option.
There is inconclusive evidence that D2L is a worthwhile switch, although it clearly should remain an option.
WebCT6, the other main alternative, has not been tested, and it is a significant jump from WebCT4. So, it warrants trialling.
Popular, stand-alone open source LMSs (such as Moodle and Sakai) have not been properly tested. Note that Moodle was NOT available to staff until semester was underway - that's why there was no uptake).
Finally, there is increasing use of Confluence (UCSpace), which offers considerable potential as an approved alternative and/or complement to a LMS.
Arguably, the future of online and mobile learning is use of networked, distributed, open tools. This is probably best achievable via mashups of existing Web2.0 services, which could be brought together via a Wiki/blog application such as UCSpace, an open source LMS, or an online application suite, such as [Google office applications]. Costs for these options are considerably less than proprietary LMS products and are arguably more adaptable to future technological innovations. UC should consider an approach which remains light on its feet with regard to possible and likely future shifts in technology for learning, and be wary of overinvesting the institution and staff in a single application. For example, Google is well underway with creating an online application suite with greater power than any current LMS. A Google operating system for mobile devices is about to be released, which may well usher in significant uptake of mobile learning.
In summary, what needs to be tested for Semester 1, 2008 before making a decision on a suitable LMS for UC is:
- WebCT6
- D2L
- Open Source LMS: A stand-alone implementation of a well recommended open source LMS (not a brand-new one like Open Academic).
- UCSpace and/or innovative experimentation with networked learning systems.
I think UC has reached a point with its approach to blended and online learning where it's time to fork, i.e., to provide:
(a) A simple, basic LMS for most staff (e.g. WebCT6, [D2L], or an open source LMS), AND
(b) Experimental development of Web2.0, networked learning tools (such as through blogs and wikis via UCSpace) by 'hot-housing' e.g., via technology-related teaching and learning grants.
Followup Comments
Since putting forward these ideas, its become clear from comments by others that WebCT6 was clearly and justifiably eliminated as an option early in the LMS selection process on the basis of:
A more recent version of my recommendations is available:
LMS recommendations
