I like your UBD Tree “deconstructed.” Did you find the little fillable boxes annoying? Are you more comfortable with this more linear format?
I too think more quickly and more clearly within the confines of a word or google document.
I’d be curious as to your thoughts on this exercise as a process tool? What do you think about “charting” as a design process?
I know your thinking on your own subject is quite evolved, and this is reflected in the flow of your Leadership and Management design – from Essential Questions through Learning Logs (forums) as assessments, and into traditional content areas such as training videos, research, and mentor feedback.
-Owen
0 likes
Yup, the little boxes pinched and chaffed a bit. That admitted I am suspicious of my response to the text. I am holding open the possibility that in a different circumstance that chart might be the right tool. Right here and now the linear path got it done. I wonder if in a collaborative setting that chart might be a way for content expert and instructional designer to work together? I wonder as well if particular disciplines might call for that approach, say, poetry, for example. I recall last semester we were wrangling over the laboratory component of science instruction. I wonder as well about the studio component of arts courses in the online venue. Perhaps the chart has a place in helping me connect with those teachers?
0 likes
…and on your paper…
Interesting point about the LMS in the workplace. I completely agree that most companies aren’t going to encourage “open learning” – so much effort is bent and focussed on combing and preening the corporate image, tolerance for behind the scenes exposure will be extremely low, I would think.
Wow. In addition to a simple tool evaluation, your paper addresses such a complex and very interesting topic. … I hardly know where to begin.
Sort of stream of consciousness – I think it interesting that Oxford Online uses Moodle. I’ve also been intrigued by edX and Canvas. The advantage that Blackboard offers is institutional security – that is, large departments can feel secure in knowing that they’re purchasing the Chevy Caprice of LMS Learning Taxis. The one thing about Blackboard (Bb) is that their pricing is also institutionally variable. There is entry level pricing to entice the institution and once your institution is invested, prices and service contracts may increase.
Years ago I was involved with a Major LMS/Campus Software system upgrade. The small college I was working for had a terrible system that was horrendously expensive through Campus America. It operated on an antiquated VAX computer… and was incredibly unapproachable. I was head of IT at the time and after a year of deliberations, we purchased a new product based on WindowsNT servers, super user friendly, much easier to maintain, etc… Product was called TEAMS. We got through a year of installation and data conversion and finally decommissioned the old VAX server… two months later the company was purchased by Campus America… It was a good system while it lasted, but I fear the future was not bright at that point.
There are so many factors. Faculty, Students, IT, costs. Even maintenance philosophies and capacities within IT departments can be highly variable and extremely important. UAA and UAF both have Blackboard, but UAF’s installation is several versions ahead, and UAA’s support staff is a small fraction of UAF’s.
I’m intrigued that Google has backed edX’s open platform efforts. I like the platform and am hopeful for a bright future funded by our click-generated dollars. Check out Mooc.org…
Thanks for the reviews and for opening the can of worms that is the LMS debate.
-owen
0 likes
I am surprised that you did not go deeper in evaluating Moodle (the open source version). I find there are two main features that IT departments are looking for: scaleability, cost, and security. Incidentally, free Moodle offers all three. Additionally as far as features go, I actually find Moodle more powerful than Blackboard. There are a lot of additional features available that are built-in. One that I think any professional trainer will appreciate is called Workshop and allows you to build branching scenarios (which are at the core of instructional design for training purposes, I think). The interface for building is a bit complicated at first, but you can create SCORM-comparable training modules without purchasing SCORM building software like Articulate.
0 likes
While Owen assigned us a paper on “product comparison” in the end my paper was about decision models and organizational change management. There are literally hundreds of LMS products. That and the realization that in a business case an HR department will be running the training program. This means that other factors need to be included in the review of LMS products, like the suite of HR tools the LMS is embedded in or at least integrated with matters too. For example, an employees personal file is accurately and immediately and hopefully automatically updated based on LMS results. So my examples were more foils for the other discussion, however, they were selected based on being full featured, then on being very different from each other.
Hey Bob,
I like your UBD Tree “deconstructed.” Did you find the little fillable boxes annoying? Are you more comfortable with this more linear format?
I too think more quickly and more clearly within the confines of a word or google document.
I’d be curious as to your thoughts on this exercise as a process tool? What do you think about “charting” as a design process?
I know your thinking on your own subject is quite evolved, and this is reflected in the flow of your Leadership and Management design – from Essential Questions through Learning Logs (forums) as assessments, and into traditional content areas such as training videos, research, and mentor feedback.
-Owen
Yup, the little boxes pinched and chaffed a bit. That admitted I am suspicious of my response to the text. I am holding open the possibility that in a different circumstance that chart might be the right tool. Right here and now the linear path got it done. I wonder if in a collaborative setting that chart might be a way for content expert and instructional designer to work together? I wonder as well if particular disciplines might call for that approach, say, poetry, for example. I recall last semester we were wrangling over the laboratory component of science instruction. I wonder as well about the studio component of arts courses in the online venue. Perhaps the chart has a place in helping me connect with those teachers?
…and on your paper…
Interesting point about the LMS in the workplace. I completely agree that most companies aren’t going to encourage “open learning” – so much effort is bent and focussed on combing and preening the corporate image, tolerance for behind the scenes exposure will be extremely low, I would think.
Wow. In addition to a simple tool evaluation, your paper addresses such a complex and very interesting topic. … I hardly know where to begin.
Sort of stream of consciousness – I think it interesting that Oxford Online uses Moodle. I’ve also been intrigued by edX and Canvas. The advantage that Blackboard offers is institutional security – that is, large departments can feel secure in knowing that they’re purchasing the Chevy Caprice of LMS Learning Taxis. The one thing about Blackboard (Bb) is that their pricing is also institutionally variable. There is entry level pricing to entice the institution and once your institution is invested, prices and service contracts may increase.
Years ago I was involved with a Major LMS/Campus Software system upgrade. The small college I was working for had a terrible system that was horrendously expensive through Campus America. It operated on an antiquated VAX computer… and was incredibly unapproachable. I was head of IT at the time and after a year of deliberations, we purchased a new product based on WindowsNT servers, super user friendly, much easier to maintain, etc… Product was called TEAMS. We got through a year of installation and data conversion and finally decommissioned the old VAX server… two months later the company was purchased by Campus America… It was a good system while it lasted, but I fear the future was not bright at that point.
There are so many factors. Faculty, Students, IT, costs. Even maintenance philosophies and capacities within IT departments can be highly variable and extremely important. UAA and UAF both have Blackboard, but UAF’s installation is several versions ahead, and UAA’s support staff is a small fraction of UAF’s.
I’m intrigued that Google has backed edX’s open platform efforts. I like the platform and am hopeful for a bright future funded by our click-generated dollars. Check out Mooc.org…
Thanks for the reviews and for opening the can of worms that is the LMS debate.
-owen
I am surprised that you did not go deeper in evaluating Moodle (the open source version). I find there are two main features that IT departments are looking for: scaleability, cost, and security. Incidentally, free Moodle offers all three. Additionally as far as features go, I actually find Moodle more powerful than Blackboard. There are a lot of additional features available that are built-in. One that I think any professional trainer will appreciate is called Workshop and allows you to build branching scenarios (which are at the core of instructional design for training purposes, I think). The interface for building is a bit complicated at first, but you can create SCORM-comparable training modules without purchasing SCORM building software like Articulate.
While Owen assigned us a paper on “product comparison” in the end my paper was about decision models and organizational change management. There are literally hundreds of LMS products. That and the realization that in a business case an HR department will be running the training program. This means that other factors need to be included in the review of LMS products, like the suite of HR tools the LMS is embedded in or at least integrated with matters too. For example, an employees personal file is accurately and immediately and hopefully automatically updated based on LMS results. So my examples were more foils for the other discussion, however, they were selected based on being full featured, then on being very different from each other.