SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Jose silva lugo - advantages of monitoring sakai usage

J
jsilvalugo

The document discusses monitoring Sakai usage at the University of Florida after it was adopted to replace WebCT in 2010. It describes how data on courses, sections, and instructors in Sakai was retrieved from databases and compared to registrar data to calculate usage percentages by college. Statistical analysis found most colleges had significantly higher Sakai usage percentages in 2011 compared to 2010 and between semesters from 2010 to 2011, indicating the marketing and training efforts increased adoption over time. The results were used to identify colleges still below 50% usage to target for additional support.

TechnologyEducation
1 of 31
Download to read offline
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
The Advantages of Monitoring Sakai Usage By Jose L. Silva-Lugo Carl J. Perry John R. Boekenoogen e-Learning Support Services Office of Academic Technology University of Florida
Introduction 2  The University of Florida (UF)’s contract with Blackboard WebCT was going to end in October 2010.  In Spring of 2009, UF came up with four options: Sakai, Blackboard, Moodle, and Angel.  UF ran open meetings with each vender.  UF set up test sites for faculty, staff, and students.  UF selected Sakai 6/10/2012
Introduction: Planning, Testing, & Implementation 3 2009 2010 2011 2012 Process Dec Spr Sum Fall Spr Sum Fall Spr Planning Pilot Study Migration Introd. to UF Roll Out Workshops Open Labs Webinars 6/10/2012
Introduction: Training & Assistant Offer to UF 4 • Getting Started • Moving On Workshops • Evaluating knowledge with online assessment • Begin a new semester • End a semester • 1 h consultation per week Open labs • There is no need of appointment • Every Tuesdays through the semester Webinar • 30 minutes per week • Every Wednesday through the semester 6/10/2012
Introduction: The Need of Monitoring Sakai Usage 5  Even though the effort of promoting Sakai carried out from summer 2010 to 2011, we did not have the expected attendance.  We decided to look our records to:  Find out the percentage of courses, sections, and instructors using Sakai per college/year  Identify the colleges with percentages less than 50% used of Sakai  Plot the percentage of courses, sections, and instructors per semester  Target colleges with a marketing program 6/10/2012
Methodology: Databases 6  Data was retrieved from the network:  Registrar Office: IBM DB2 database  Middleware: MySQL database  Language used to query the database:  A PHP script queried both database (< 5 seconds).  The same script merged and compared the results (5- 20 seconds). 6/10/2012
Methods: Points of Interest about Querying 7  You need to understand the database.  You have to find how to best compare the results:  The Registrar DB2 had zero to many instructors associated with a section  The Registrar DB2 used postfix characters in the course name, such as for labs  The results produced from each database were accurate and error free.  Manipulating large data sets and verifying the results were accurate. 6/10/2012
Methodology: Calculating Percentages 8 Registrar (Total) Middleware (Sakai) • Courses • Courses • Sections • Sections • Instructors • Instructors No. of Courses Middleware % of Courses = Xx 100 No. of Courses Registrar 6/10/2012
Methodology: Statistics 9  Statistical Analysis:  Proportion comparison:  Between 2010 and 2011 for courses, sections, and instructors per college  Between semesters for courses, sections, and instructors  Alpha level = 0.05  Two-tailed test 6/10/2012
No. of Courses from the Registrar Office and Middleware in 2010 & 2011 2010 2011 College Registrar 10 Middleware Percentage Registrar Middleware Percentage DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING 307 91 29.64 348 256 73.56 HEALTH AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE 383 91 23.76 423 282 66.67 ENGINEERING 1,100 218 19.82 1,127 445 39.49 JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATIONS 311 57 18.33 289 191 66.09 MEDICINE 534 92 17.23 519 116 22.35 PHARMACY 244 42 17.21 296 150 50.68 LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES 3,138 455 14.50 2,872 1,237 43.07 PUBLIC HEALTH & HEALTH PROFESSIONS 457 65 14.22 458 245 53.49 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 645 88 13.64 653 406 62.17 AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES 1,602 213 13.30 1,647 573 34.79 CROSS-COLLEGE 36 4 11.11 47 0 0.00 FINE ARTS 1,022 56 5.48 1,037 179 17.26 VETERINARY MEDICINE 259 13 5.02 264 51 19.32 EDUCATION 630 18 2.86 662 54 8.16 DENTISTRY 244 1 0.41 279 5 1.79 ACCOUNTING 64 0 0.00 65 0 0.00 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 211 0 0.00 218 0 0.00 CONTINUING EDUCATION 209 0 0.00 171 0 0.00 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 190 0 0.00 550 11 2.00 MILITARY 62 0 0.00 55 0 0.00 NURSING 133 0 0.00 130 88 67.69 Total 11,781 1,504 12.77 12,110 4,289 35.42 6/10/2012
11 6/10/2012
Courses: Proportion Comparison between 2010 and 2011 per College 12 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result AGRICULTURAL 0.13 0.35 0.2419 0.0150 14.3034 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 0.14 0.62 0.3806 0.0270 18.0054 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 DENTISTRY 0.00 0.02 0.0115 0.0093 1.4809 1.645 0.0694 P > 0.05 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION 0.30 0.74 0.5298 0.0391 11.2387 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 EDUCATION 0.03 0.08 0.0557 0.0128 4.1510 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 ENGINEERING 0.20 0.39 0.2977 0.0194 10.1481 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 FINE ARTS 0.05 0.17 0.1141 0.0140 8.4064 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 HEALTH & HUMAN PERFORMANCE 0.24 0.67 0.4628 0.0352 12.2002 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATIONS 0.18 0.66 0.4133 0.0402 11.8711 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 0.00 0.02 0.0149 0.0102 1.9640 1.645 0.0250 P < 0.05 LIBERAL ARTS & SCIENCES 0.14 0.43 0.2787 0.0115 25.0227 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 MEDICINE 0.17 0.22 0.1975 0.0245 2.0872 1.645 0.0188 P < 0.05 NURSING 0.00 0.68 0.3346 0.0582 11.6320 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 PHARMACY 0.17 0.51 0.3556 0.0414 8.0846 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 PUBLIC HEALTH 0.14 0.53 0.3388 0.0313 12.5489 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 VETERINARY MEDICINE 0.05 0.19 0.1224 0.0287 4.9889 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 2010 0.13 0.50 0.3142 0.0060 61.6931 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 2011 0.35 0.50 0.4248 0.0064 22.2413 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
13 6/10/2012
14 6/10/2012
Courses: Proportion Comparison between Semesters 15 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result Spring 2010 - Summer 2010 0.00 0.04 0.0166 0.0031 13.4318 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Summer 2010 - Summer 2011 0.04 0.29 0.1772 0.0102 24.5078 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Spring 2011 0.30 0.37 0.3344 0.0099 6.4253 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Summer 2011 0.30 0.29 0.2985 0.0107 1.0054 1.645 0.1562 P > 0.05 Fall 2010 - Fall 2011 0.30 0.38 0.3432 0.0099 8.1293 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Spring 2011 - Summer 2011 0.37 0.29 0.3363 0.0111 6.7244 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Spring 2011 - Fall 2011 0.37 0.38 0.3752 0.0102 1.6609 1.645 0.0485 P < 0.05 Summer 2011 - Fall 2011 0.29 0.38 0.3469 0.0111 8.2315 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
16 6/10/2012
No. of Sections from the Registrar Office and Middleware in 2010 & 2011 2010 2011 College Registrar 17 Middleware Percentage Registrar Middleware Percentage HEALTH AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE 628 169 26.91 894 563 62.98 MEDICINE 604 134 22.19 682 165 24.19 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING 577 125 21.66 582 341 58.59 ENGINEERING 2467 500 20.27 2384 784 32.89 PHARMACY 718 131 18.25 735 426 57.96 LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES 7653 1308 17.09 7632 3649 47.81 CROSS-COLLEGE 66 11 16.67 71 0 0.00 JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATIONS 588 98 16.67 638 327 51.25 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 1264 185 14.64 1306 915 70.06 AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES 3220 457 14.19 3870 1144 29.56 PUBLIC HEALTH & HEALTH PROFESSIONS 811 90 11.10 919 347 37.76 FINE ARTS 1843 87 4.72 1975 273 13.82 VETERINARY MEDICINE 325 14 4.31 370 63 17.03 EDUCATION 1299 22 1.69 1389 78 5.62 DENTISTRY 356 1 0.28 372 4 1.08 ACCOUNTING 136 0 0.00 116 0 0.00 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 269 0 0.00 277 0 0.00 CONTINUING EDUCATION 228 0 0.00 177 0 0.00 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 441 0 0.00 503 11 2.19 MILITARY 90 0 0.00 79 0 0.00 NURSING 279 0 0.00 279 208 74.55 Total 23,862 3,332 13.96 25,250 9,298 36.82 6/10/2012
18 6/10/2012
Sections: Proportion Comparison between 2010 and 2011 per College 19 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result AGRICULTURAL 0.14 0.30 0.2258 0.0100 15.4094 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 0.15 0.70 0.4280 0.0195 28.3899 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 DENTISTRY 0.00 0.01 0.0069 0.0061 1.2973 1.645 0.0968 P > 0.05 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION & PLANNING 0.22 0.59 0.4021 0.0288 12.8197 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 EDUCATION 0.02 0.06 0.0372 0.0073 5.3689 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 ENGINEERING 0.20 0.33 0.2647 0.0127 9.9592 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 FINE ARTS 0.05 0.14 0.0943 0.0095 9.6172 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 HEALTH & HUMAN PERFORMANCE 0.27 0.63 0.4809 0.0260 13.8633 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATIONS 0.17 0.51 0.3467 0.0272 12.7130 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 0.00 0.02 0.0117 0.0070 3.1238 1.645 < 0.001 P < 0.05 LIBERAL ARTS & SCIENCES 0.17 0.48 0.3243 0.0076 40.5675 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 MEDICINE 0.22 0.24 0.2325 0.0236 0.8508 1.645 0.1917 P > 0.05 NURSING 0.00 0.75 0.3728 0.0409 18.2102 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 PHARMACY 0.18 0.58 0.3833 0.0255 15.5669 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 PUBLIC HEALTH & HEALH PROFESSIONS 0.11 0.38 0.2526 0.0209 12.7359 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 VETERINARY MEDICINE 0.04 0.17 0.1108 0.0239 5.3304 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 2010 0.14 0.50 0.3213 0.0043 84.9707 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 2011 0.37 0.50 0.4316 0.0044 28.7675 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
20 6/10/2012
21 6/10/2012
Sections: Proportion Comparison between Semesters 22 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result Spring 2010 - Summer 2010 0.00 0.05 0.0163 0.0023 21.5659 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Summer 2010 - Summer 2011 0.05 0.24 0.1576 0.0074 25.3576 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Spring 2011 0.31 0.40 0.3528 0.0068 12.3286 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Summer 2011 0.31 0.24 0.2850 0.0075 9.7743 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Fall 2011 0.31 0.42 0.3636 0.0068 15.2238 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Spring 2011 - Summer 2011 0.40 0.24 0.3371 0.0079 19.8939 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Spring 2011 - Fall 2011 0.40 0.42 0.4058 0.0070 2.7055 1.645 0.0034 P < 0.05 Summer 2011 - Fall 2011 0.24 0.42 0.3514 0.0079 22.3055 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
No. of Instructors from the Registrar Office and Middleware in 2010 & 2011 2010 2011 College Registrar 23 Middleware Percentage Registrar Middleware Percentage CROSS-COLLEGE 36 10 27.78 37 0 0.00 HEALTH AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE 220 56 25.45 267 175 65.54 ENGINEERING 697 176 25.25 758 417 55.01 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING 218 46 21.10 236 129 54.66 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 405 80 19.75 414 124 29.95 JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATIONS 286 56 19.58 318 180 56.60 LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES 3,364 519 15.43 3,843 1,289 33.54 PUBLIC HEALTH & HEALTH PROFESSIONS 403 61 15.14 444 162 36.49 AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES 1,003 147 14.66 1,050 388 36.95 FINE ARTS 621 50 8.05 659 141 21.40 VETERINARY MEDICINE 256 14 5.47 489 32 6.54 MEDICINE 324 16 4.94 541 49 9.06 EDUCATION 583 21 3.60 581 67 11.53 PHARMACY 164 3 1.83 236 8 3.39 DENTISTRY 132 1 0.76 571 4 0.70 ACCOUNTING 40 0 0.00 45 0 0.00 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 67 0 0.00 82 0 0.00 CONTINUING EDUCATION 12 0 0.00 5 0 0.00 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 256 0 0.00 297 9 3.03 MILITARY 28 0 0.00 31 0 0.00 NURSING 174 0 0.00 205 6 2.93 Total 9,289 1,256 13.52 11,109 3,180 28.63 6/10/2012
24 6/10/2012
Instructors: Proportion Comparison between 2010 and 2011 per College 25 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result AGRICULTURAL 0.15 0.37 0.2606 0.0194 11.5043 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 0.20 0.30 0.2491 0.0302 3.3741 1.645 < 0.001 P < 0.05 DENTISTRY 0.01 0.01 0.0071 0.0081 0.0703 1.645 0.4721 P > 0.05 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION 0.21 0.55 0.3855 0.0457 7.3403 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 EDUCATION 0.04 0.12 0.0756 0.0155 5.1170 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 ENGINEERING 0.25 0.55 0.4076 0.0258 11.5416 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 FINE ARTS 0.08 0.21 0.1492 0.0199 6.6968 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 HEALTH & HUMAN PERFORMANCE 0.25 0.66 0.4743 0.0455 8.8171 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATIONS 0.20 0.57 0.3907 0.0398 9.3113 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 0.00 0.03 0.0163 0.0108 2.8082 1.645 0.0025 P < 0.05 LIBERAL ARTS & SCIENCES 0.15 0.34 0.2509 0.0102 17.6964 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 MEDICINE 0.05 0.09 0.0751 0.0185 2.2242 1.645 0.0132 P < 0.05 NURSING 0.00 0.03 0.0158 0.0129 2.2748 1.645 0.0116 P < 0.05 PHARMACY 0.02 0.03 0.0275 0.0166 0.9387 1.645 0.1736 P > 0.05 PUBLIC HEALTH 0.15 0.36 0.2633 0.0303 7.0459 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 VETERINARY MEDICINE 0.05 0.07 0.0617 0.0186 0.5791 1.645 0.2810 P > 0.05 2010 0.14 0.50 0.3152 0.0068 52.8065 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 2011 0.50 0.29 0.3907 0.0065 31.9009 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
26 6/10/2012
27 6/10/2012
Instructors: Proportion Comparison between Semesters 28 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result Spring 2010 - Summer 2010 0.00 0.07 0.0235 0.0044 14.5203 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Summer 2010 - Summer 2011 0.07 0.23 0.1582 0.0113 14.3211 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Spring 2011 0.29 0.32 0.3065 0.0103 3.5117 1.645 < 0.001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Summer 2011 0.29 0.23 0.2645 0.0114 5.3643 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Fall 2011 0.29 0.28 0.2856 0.0099 0.4479 1.645 0.3264 P > 0.05 Spring 2011 - Summer 2011 0.32 0.23 0.2881 0.0115 8.4099 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Spring 2011 - Fall 2011 0.32 0.28 0.3030 0.0099 4.0899 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Summer 2011 - Fall 2011 0.23 0.28 0.2636 0.0111 5.1051 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
29 6/10/2012
Discussion 30  In general, course, sections, and instructors using Sakai are not monitored.  This simple procedure has the following advantages:  Provide information about the proportion of instructors, courses, and sections using Sakai.  It helps to monitor the implementation process.  It creates the database for marketing programs.  It might be used to evaluate success at the college and at university level. 6/10/2012
Conclusions 31 There was significant increase in their proportions of courses, sections, and instructors from 2010 to 2011 in the majority of the colleges. There was significant increase in their proportions of courses, sections, and instructors per semester. We have identified the colleges that need more our attention, and we are targeting them with a marketing program. Monitoring Sakai usage is important during the implementation and evaluation of the overall success at the college and university level. 6/10/2012

More Related Content

PDF
Jose silva lugo - advantages of monitoring sakai usage
jsilvalugo
 
PPTX
Jasig sakai2012 silva-lugo
jsilvalugo
 
PDF
Open Doors Fast Facts2009
Marty Bennett
 
PDF
茨城大学2008
env29
 
PDF
TeachSA 2012
Education Moving Up Cc.
 
PPTX
Activities of the March of Dimes - Joe Leigh Simpson
Human Variome Project
 
PPTX
Haemoglobinopathies in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Nepal - Tilak Shresta
Human Variome Project
 
PPT
Writing for bbc radio master
muna12345
 
Jose silva lugo - advantages of monitoring sakai usage
jsilvalugo
 
Jasig sakai2012 silva-lugo
jsilvalugo
 
Open Doors Fast Facts2009
Marty Bennett
 
茨城大学2008
env29
 
TeachSA 2012
Education Moving Up Cc.
 
Activities of the March of Dimes - Joe Leigh Simpson
Human Variome Project
 
Haemoglobinopathies in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Nepal - Tilak Shresta
Human Variome Project
 
Writing for bbc radio master
muna12345
 

Viewers also liked (14)

PPTX
Report from the Gene & Disease Specific Database Advisory Council - Peter Ta...
Human Variome Project
 
PPTX
Global Globin 2020 Challenge: Developing capacity for gene variant data shari...
Human Variome Project
 
PPTX
Professor Richard Cotton - Finlay Macrae
Human Variome Project
 
PPTX
HVP Country Node: Canada - Matthew Lebo
Human Variome Project
 
PPTX
ETS Careers
etscareers
 
PPTX
Phenotype-based Matching Using PhenoDB Terms in BHCMG PhenoDB to Maximize Who...
Human Variome Project
 
PPTX
Legal and regulatory challenges to data sharing for clinical genetics and ge...
Human Variome Project
 
PPT
The ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Group: Refining Criteria ...
Human Variome Project
 
PPTX
The BRCA Challenge & Exchange: Progress and Plans - Gunnar Rätsch
Human Variome Project
 
PPTX
GENETIC HETEROGENEITY OF MITOCHONDRIAL DISORDERS - Agnès Rötig
Human Variome Project
 
PDF
Recruit Combine PR Plan
etscareers
 
PPTX
Partnerships and Networks in Africa - Léon Tshilolo
Human Variome Project
 
PPTX
Global Globin 2020 Challenge: Ethical, Legal and Social Issues - Helen Robinson
Human Variome Project
 
PPTX
ClinVar: Aggregating Data to Improve Variant Interpretation - Melissa Landrum
Human Variome Project
 
Report from the Gene & Disease Specific Database Advisory Council - Peter Ta...
Human Variome Project
 
Global Globin 2020 Challenge: Developing capacity for gene variant data shari...
Human Variome Project
 
Professor Richard Cotton - Finlay Macrae
Human Variome Project
 
HVP Country Node: Canada - Matthew Lebo
Human Variome Project
 
ETS Careers
etscareers
 
Phenotype-based Matching Using PhenoDB Terms in BHCMG PhenoDB to Maximize Who...
Human Variome Project
 
Legal and regulatory challenges to data sharing for clinical genetics and ge...
Human Variome Project
 
The ClinGen Sequence Variant Interpretation Working Group: Refining Criteria ...
Human Variome Project
 
The BRCA Challenge & Exchange: Progress and Plans - Gunnar Rätsch
Human Variome Project
 
GENETIC HETEROGENEITY OF MITOCHONDRIAL DISORDERS - Agnès Rötig
Human Variome Project
 
Recruit Combine PR Plan
etscareers
 
Partnerships and Networks in Africa - Léon Tshilolo
Human Variome Project
 
Global Globin 2020 Challenge: Ethical, Legal and Social Issues - Helen Robinson
Human Variome Project
 
ClinVar: Aggregating Data to Improve Variant Interpretation - Melissa Landrum
Human Variome Project
 
Ad

Similar to Jose silva lugo - advantages of monitoring sakai usage (20)

PPT
Instruction Designe for e-Content Development;UK-India Prospective
Mazhar Laliwala
 
PDF
Mpkk 2012 ICT SPM
aimarashid
 
PPT
Perjumpaan waris upsr 2012 kali ke 2 new
Lagoon Biru
 
PDF
Online examination system
Mr. Vikram Singh Slathia
 
PDF
Training & Education in Composites
PlusComposites
 
PPTX
Sp091008
Stuart Palmer
 
PPT
Domz presentation report
Jeffrey Basangal
 
PPTX
KBC Group NV
MichenaudAlice
 
PDF
Syllabus1
floridadavedean
 
PPTX
2012.10.08 school board meeting
roverdust
 
PDF
Darra Singh, E&Y, Community Budgets
iNetwork
 
PDF
MURSD FY12 Foundation Budget
jpm66
 
PDF
Grade Distribs Lgcourses Summary
Lynda Milne
 
PPSX
Quality improvement for documentation case study 20120419
Louise Tincher
 
PPTX
Online Educa Berlin
Luciano Sathler
 
PDF
Algorithms and computational techniques in biology edukite
EduKite
 
PDF
It competencies a study on malaysian university oke
Bambang Purwantho
 
PDF
Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences 9th Edition Devor...
vhenbdv97
 
PDF
Pittsburgh Nonprofit Summit - Measuring Change - Supplemental Slides
GPNP
 
DOC
How we plan to further improve our service
Ashwani Yadav
 
Instruction Designe for e-Content Development;UK-India Prospective
Mazhar Laliwala
 
Mpkk 2012 ICT SPM
aimarashid
 
Perjumpaan waris upsr 2012 kali ke 2 new
Lagoon Biru
 
Online examination system
Mr. Vikram Singh Slathia
 
Training & Education in Composites
PlusComposites
 
Sp091008
Stuart Palmer
 
Domz presentation report
Jeffrey Basangal
 
KBC Group NV
MichenaudAlice
 
Syllabus1
floridadavedean
 
2012.10.08 school board meeting
roverdust
 
Darra Singh, E&Y, Community Budgets
iNetwork
 
MURSD FY12 Foundation Budget
jpm66
 
Grade Distribs Lgcourses Summary
Lynda Milne
 
Quality improvement for documentation case study 20120419
Louise Tincher
 
Online Educa Berlin
Luciano Sathler
 
Algorithms and computational techniques in biology edukite
EduKite
 
It competencies a study on malaysian university oke
Bambang Purwantho
 
Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences 9th Edition Devor...
vhenbdv97
 
Pittsburgh Nonprofit Summit - Measuring Change - Supplemental Slides
GPNP
 
How we plan to further improve our service
Ashwani Yadav
 
Ad

Recently uploaded (20)

PPTX
Final SEM Unit 1 for mit wpu at pune .pptx
anishtilekar08
 
PDF
Architecture types and enterprise applications.pdf
ChristopherTHyatt
 
PDF
Getting Started with Data Integration: FME Form 101
Safe Software
 
PDF
Enhancing emotion recognition model for a student engagement use case through...
IAESIJAI
 
PDF
WOOl fibre morphology and structure.pdf for textiles
Rajendrakumar868651
 
PDF
NewMind AI Weekly Chronicles - August'25-Week II
NewMind AI
 
PDF
STKI Israel Market Study 2025 version august
Dr. Jimmy Schwarzkopf
 
PDF
Profit Center Accounting in SAP S/4HANA, S4F28 Col11
Libreria ERP
 
PDF
NewMind AI Weekly Chronicles – August ’25 Week III
NewMind AI
 
PDF
Web App vs Mobile App What Should You Build First.pdf
KodekX
 
PPTX
The various Industrial Revolutions .pptx
bandileshozi3
 
PPTX
MicrosoftCybserSecurityReferenceArchitecture-April-2025.pptx
SilvioHayashi
 
PDF
ENT215_Completing-a-large-scale-migration-and-modernization-with-AWS.pdf
ssuser28425f
 
PDF
project resource management chapter-09.pdf
ssuser00e6e21
 
PDF
Getting started with AI Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Maxim Salnikov
 
PDF
Hindi spoken digit analysis for native and non-native speakers
IAESIJAI
 
PDF
How ambidextrous entrepreneurial leaders react to the artificial intelligence...
IAESIJAI
 
PPT
Module 1.ppt Iot fundamentals and Architecture
nanditha7766
 
PDF
DP Operators-handbook-extract for the Mautical Institute
LeonelMejiaLarios
 
PDF
Microsoft Solutions Partner Drive Digital Transformation with D365.pdf
Microsoft Dynamics
 
Final SEM Unit 1 for mit wpu at pune .pptx
anishtilekar08
 
Architecture types and enterprise applications.pdf
ChristopherTHyatt
 
Getting Started with Data Integration: FME Form 101
Safe Software
 
Enhancing emotion recognition model for a student engagement use case through...
IAESIJAI
 
WOOl fibre morphology and structure.pdf for textiles
Rajendrakumar868651
 
NewMind AI Weekly Chronicles - August'25-Week II
NewMind AI
 
STKI Israel Market Study 2025 version august
Dr. Jimmy Schwarzkopf
 
Profit Center Accounting in SAP S/4HANA, S4F28 Col11
Libreria ERP
 
NewMind AI Weekly Chronicles – August ’25 Week III
NewMind AI
 
Web App vs Mobile App What Should You Build First.pdf
KodekX
 
The various Industrial Revolutions .pptx
bandileshozi3
 
MicrosoftCybserSecurityReferenceArchitecture-April-2025.pptx
SilvioHayashi
 
ENT215_Completing-a-large-scale-migration-and-modernization-with-AWS.pdf
ssuser28425f
 
project resource management chapter-09.pdf
ssuser00e6e21
 
Getting started with AI Agents and Multi-Agent Systems
Maxim Salnikov
 
Hindi spoken digit analysis for native and non-native speakers
IAESIJAI
 
How ambidextrous entrepreneurial leaders react to the artificial intelligence...
IAESIJAI
 
Module 1.ppt Iot fundamentals and Architecture
nanditha7766
 
DP Operators-handbook-extract for the Mautical Institute
LeonelMejiaLarios
 
Microsoft Solutions Partner Drive Digital Transformation with D365.pdf
Microsoft Dynamics
 

Jose silva lugo - advantages of monitoring sakai usage

  • 1. The Advantages of Monitoring Sakai Usage By Jose L. Silva-Lugo Carl J. Perry John R. Boekenoogen e-Learning Support Services Office of Academic Technology University of Florida
  • 2. Introduction 2  The University of Florida (UF)’s contract with Blackboard WebCT was going to end in October 2010.  In Spring of 2009, UF came up with four options: Sakai, Blackboard, Moodle, and Angel.  UF ran open meetings with each vender.  UF set up test sites for faculty, staff, and students.  UF selected Sakai 6/10/2012
  • 3. Introduction: Planning, Testing, & Implementation 3 2009 2010 2011 2012 Process Dec Spr Sum Fall Spr Sum Fall Spr Planning Pilot Study Migration Introd. to UF Roll Out Workshops Open Labs Webinars 6/10/2012
  • 4. Introduction: Training & Assistant Offer to UF 4 • Getting Started • Moving On Workshops • Evaluating knowledge with online assessment • Begin a new semester • End a semester • 1 h consultation per week Open labs • There is no need of appointment • Every Tuesdays through the semester Webinar • 30 minutes per week • Every Wednesday through the semester 6/10/2012
  • 5. Introduction: The Need of Monitoring Sakai Usage 5  Even though the effort of promoting Sakai carried out from summer 2010 to 2011, we did not have the expected attendance.  We decided to look our records to:  Find out the percentage of courses, sections, and instructors using Sakai per college/year  Identify the colleges with percentages less than 50% used of Sakai  Plot the percentage of courses, sections, and instructors per semester  Target colleges with a marketing program 6/10/2012
  • 6. Methodology: Databases 6  Data was retrieved from the network:  Registrar Office: IBM DB2 database  Middleware: MySQL database  Language used to query the database:  A PHP script queried both database (< 5 seconds).  The same script merged and compared the results (5- 20 seconds). 6/10/2012
  • 7. Methods: Points of Interest about Querying 7  You need to understand the database.  You have to find how to best compare the results:  The Registrar DB2 had zero to many instructors associated with a section  The Registrar DB2 used postfix characters in the course name, such as for labs  The results produced from each database were accurate and error free.  Manipulating large data sets and verifying the results were accurate. 6/10/2012
  • 8. Methodology: Calculating Percentages 8 Registrar (Total) Middleware (Sakai) • Courses • Courses • Sections • Sections • Instructors • Instructors No. of Courses Middleware % of Courses = Xx 100 No. of Courses Registrar 6/10/2012
  • 9. Methodology: Statistics 9  Statistical Analysis:  Proportion comparison:  Between 2010 and 2011 for courses, sections, and instructors per college  Between semesters for courses, sections, and instructors  Alpha level = 0.05  Two-tailed test 6/10/2012
  • 10. No. of Courses from the Registrar Office and Middleware in 2010 & 2011 2010 2011 College Registrar 10 Middleware Percentage Registrar Middleware Percentage DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING 307 91 29.64 348 256 73.56 HEALTH AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE 383 91 23.76 423 282 66.67 ENGINEERING 1,100 218 19.82 1,127 445 39.49 JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATIONS 311 57 18.33 289 191 66.09 MEDICINE 534 92 17.23 519 116 22.35 PHARMACY 244 42 17.21 296 150 50.68 LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES 3,138 455 14.50 2,872 1,237 43.07 PUBLIC HEALTH & HEALTH PROFESSIONS 457 65 14.22 458 245 53.49 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 645 88 13.64 653 406 62.17 AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES 1,602 213 13.30 1,647 573 34.79 CROSS-COLLEGE 36 4 11.11 47 0 0.00 FINE ARTS 1,022 56 5.48 1,037 179 17.26 VETERINARY MEDICINE 259 13 5.02 264 51 19.32 EDUCATION 630 18 2.86 662 54 8.16 DENTISTRY 244 1 0.41 279 5 1.79 ACCOUNTING 64 0 0.00 65 0 0.00 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 211 0 0.00 218 0 0.00 CONTINUING EDUCATION 209 0 0.00 171 0 0.00 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 190 0 0.00 550 11 2.00 MILITARY 62 0 0.00 55 0 0.00 NURSING 133 0 0.00 130 88 67.69 Total 11,781 1,504 12.77 12,110 4,289 35.42 6/10/2012
  • 11. 11 6/10/2012
  • 12. Courses: Proportion Comparison between 2010 and 2011 per College 12 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result AGRICULTURAL 0.13 0.35 0.2419 0.0150 14.3034 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 0.14 0.62 0.3806 0.0270 18.0054 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 DENTISTRY 0.00 0.02 0.0115 0.0093 1.4809 1.645 0.0694 P > 0.05 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION 0.30 0.74 0.5298 0.0391 11.2387 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 EDUCATION 0.03 0.08 0.0557 0.0128 4.1510 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 ENGINEERING 0.20 0.39 0.2977 0.0194 10.1481 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 FINE ARTS 0.05 0.17 0.1141 0.0140 8.4064 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 HEALTH & HUMAN PERFORMANCE 0.24 0.67 0.4628 0.0352 12.2002 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATIONS 0.18 0.66 0.4133 0.0402 11.8711 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 0.00 0.02 0.0149 0.0102 1.9640 1.645 0.0250 P < 0.05 LIBERAL ARTS & SCIENCES 0.14 0.43 0.2787 0.0115 25.0227 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 MEDICINE 0.17 0.22 0.1975 0.0245 2.0872 1.645 0.0188 P < 0.05 NURSING 0.00 0.68 0.3346 0.0582 11.6320 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 PHARMACY 0.17 0.51 0.3556 0.0414 8.0846 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 PUBLIC HEALTH 0.14 0.53 0.3388 0.0313 12.5489 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 VETERINARY MEDICINE 0.05 0.19 0.1224 0.0287 4.9889 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 2010 0.13 0.50 0.3142 0.0060 61.6931 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 2011 0.35 0.50 0.4248 0.0064 22.2413 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
  • 13. 13 6/10/2012
  • 14. 14 6/10/2012
  • 15. Courses: Proportion Comparison between Semesters 15 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result Spring 2010 - Summer 2010 0.00 0.04 0.0166 0.0031 13.4318 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Summer 2010 - Summer 2011 0.04 0.29 0.1772 0.0102 24.5078 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Spring 2011 0.30 0.37 0.3344 0.0099 6.4253 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Summer 2011 0.30 0.29 0.2985 0.0107 1.0054 1.645 0.1562 P > 0.05 Fall 2010 - Fall 2011 0.30 0.38 0.3432 0.0099 8.1293 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Spring 2011 - Summer 2011 0.37 0.29 0.3363 0.0111 6.7244 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Spring 2011 - Fall 2011 0.37 0.38 0.3752 0.0102 1.6609 1.645 0.0485 P < 0.05 Summer 2011 - Fall 2011 0.29 0.38 0.3469 0.0111 8.2315 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
  • 16. 16 6/10/2012
  • 17. No. of Sections from the Registrar Office and Middleware in 2010 & 2011 2010 2011 College Registrar 17 Middleware Percentage Registrar Middleware Percentage HEALTH AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE 628 169 26.91 894 563 62.98 MEDICINE 604 134 22.19 682 165 24.19 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING 577 125 21.66 582 341 58.59 ENGINEERING 2467 500 20.27 2384 784 32.89 PHARMACY 718 131 18.25 735 426 57.96 LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES 7653 1308 17.09 7632 3649 47.81 CROSS-COLLEGE 66 11 16.67 71 0 0.00 JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATIONS 588 98 16.67 638 327 51.25 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 1264 185 14.64 1306 915 70.06 AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES 3220 457 14.19 3870 1144 29.56 PUBLIC HEALTH & HEALTH PROFESSIONS 811 90 11.10 919 347 37.76 FINE ARTS 1843 87 4.72 1975 273 13.82 VETERINARY MEDICINE 325 14 4.31 370 63 17.03 EDUCATION 1299 22 1.69 1389 78 5.62 DENTISTRY 356 1 0.28 372 4 1.08 ACCOUNTING 136 0 0.00 116 0 0.00 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 269 0 0.00 277 0 0.00 CONTINUING EDUCATION 228 0 0.00 177 0 0.00 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 441 0 0.00 503 11 2.19 MILITARY 90 0 0.00 79 0 0.00 NURSING 279 0 0.00 279 208 74.55 Total 23,862 3,332 13.96 25,250 9,298 36.82 6/10/2012
  • 18. 18 6/10/2012
  • 19. Sections: Proportion Comparison between 2010 and 2011 per College 19 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result AGRICULTURAL 0.14 0.30 0.2258 0.0100 15.4094 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 0.15 0.70 0.4280 0.0195 28.3899 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 DENTISTRY 0.00 0.01 0.0069 0.0061 1.2973 1.645 0.0968 P > 0.05 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION & PLANNING 0.22 0.59 0.4021 0.0288 12.8197 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 EDUCATION 0.02 0.06 0.0372 0.0073 5.3689 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 ENGINEERING 0.20 0.33 0.2647 0.0127 9.9592 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 FINE ARTS 0.05 0.14 0.0943 0.0095 9.6172 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 HEALTH & HUMAN PERFORMANCE 0.27 0.63 0.4809 0.0260 13.8633 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATIONS 0.17 0.51 0.3467 0.0272 12.7130 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 0.00 0.02 0.0117 0.0070 3.1238 1.645 < 0.001 P < 0.05 LIBERAL ARTS & SCIENCES 0.17 0.48 0.3243 0.0076 40.5675 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 MEDICINE 0.22 0.24 0.2325 0.0236 0.8508 1.645 0.1917 P > 0.05 NURSING 0.00 0.75 0.3728 0.0409 18.2102 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 PHARMACY 0.18 0.58 0.3833 0.0255 15.5669 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 PUBLIC HEALTH & HEALH PROFESSIONS 0.11 0.38 0.2526 0.0209 12.7359 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 VETERINARY MEDICINE 0.04 0.17 0.1108 0.0239 5.3304 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 2010 0.14 0.50 0.3213 0.0043 84.9707 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 2011 0.37 0.50 0.4316 0.0044 28.7675 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
  • 20. 20 6/10/2012
  • 21. 21 6/10/2012
  • 22. Sections: Proportion Comparison between Semesters 22 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result Spring 2010 - Summer 2010 0.00 0.05 0.0163 0.0023 21.5659 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Summer 2010 - Summer 2011 0.05 0.24 0.1576 0.0074 25.3576 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Spring 2011 0.31 0.40 0.3528 0.0068 12.3286 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Summer 2011 0.31 0.24 0.2850 0.0075 9.7743 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Fall 2011 0.31 0.42 0.3636 0.0068 15.2238 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Spring 2011 - Summer 2011 0.40 0.24 0.3371 0.0079 19.8939 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Spring 2011 - Fall 2011 0.40 0.42 0.4058 0.0070 2.7055 1.645 0.0034 P < 0.05 Summer 2011 - Fall 2011 0.24 0.42 0.3514 0.0079 22.3055 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
  • 23. No. of Instructors from the Registrar Office and Middleware in 2010 & 2011 2010 2011 College Registrar 23 Middleware Percentage Registrar Middleware Percentage CROSS-COLLEGE 36 10 27.78 37 0 0.00 HEALTH AND HUMAN PERFORMANCE 220 56 25.45 267 175 65.54 ENGINEERING 697 176 25.25 758 417 55.01 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND PLANNING 218 46 21.10 236 129 54.66 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 405 80 19.75 414 124 29.95 JOURNALISM AND COMMUNICATIONS 286 56 19.58 318 180 56.60 LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES 3,364 519 15.43 3,843 1,289 33.54 PUBLIC HEALTH & HEALTH PROFESSIONS 403 61 15.14 444 162 36.49 AGRICULTURAL AND LIFE SCIENCES 1,003 147 14.66 1,050 388 36.95 FINE ARTS 621 50 8.05 659 141 21.40 VETERINARY MEDICINE 256 14 5.47 489 32 6.54 MEDICINE 324 16 4.94 541 49 9.06 EDUCATION 583 21 3.60 581 67 11.53 PHARMACY 164 3 1.83 236 8 3.39 DENTISTRY 132 1 0.76 571 4 0.70 ACCOUNTING 40 0 0.00 45 0 0.00 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION 67 0 0.00 82 0 0.00 CONTINUING EDUCATION 12 0 0.00 5 0 0.00 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 256 0 0.00 297 9 3.03 MILITARY 28 0 0.00 31 0 0.00 NURSING 174 0 0.00 205 6 2.93 Total 9,289 1,256 13.52 11,109 3,180 28.63 6/10/2012
  • 24. 24 6/10/2012
  • 25. Instructors: Proportion Comparison between 2010 and 2011 per College 25 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result AGRICULTURAL 0.15 0.37 0.2606 0.0194 11.5043 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 0.20 0.30 0.2491 0.0302 3.3741 1.645 < 0.001 P < 0.05 DENTISTRY 0.01 0.01 0.0071 0.0081 0.0703 1.645 0.4721 P > 0.05 DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION 0.21 0.55 0.3855 0.0457 7.3403 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 EDUCATION 0.04 0.12 0.0756 0.0155 5.1170 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 ENGINEERING 0.25 0.55 0.4076 0.0258 11.5416 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 FINE ARTS 0.08 0.21 0.1492 0.0199 6.6968 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 HEALTH & HUMAN PERFORMANCE 0.25 0.66 0.4743 0.0455 8.8171 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 JOURNALISM & COMMUNICATIONS 0.20 0.57 0.3907 0.0398 9.3113 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 LEVIN COLLEGE OF LAW 0.00 0.03 0.0163 0.0108 2.8082 1.645 0.0025 P < 0.05 LIBERAL ARTS & SCIENCES 0.15 0.34 0.2509 0.0102 17.6964 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 MEDICINE 0.05 0.09 0.0751 0.0185 2.2242 1.645 0.0132 P < 0.05 NURSING 0.00 0.03 0.0158 0.0129 2.2748 1.645 0.0116 P < 0.05 PHARMACY 0.02 0.03 0.0275 0.0166 0.9387 1.645 0.1736 P > 0.05 PUBLIC HEALTH 0.15 0.36 0.2633 0.0303 7.0459 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 VETERINARY MEDICINE 0.05 0.07 0.0617 0.0186 0.5791 1.645 0.2810 P > 0.05 2010 0.14 0.50 0.3152 0.0068 52.8065 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 2011 0.50 0.29 0.3907 0.0065 31.9009 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
  • 26. 26 6/10/2012
  • 27. 27 6/10/2012
  • 28. Instructors: Proportion Comparison between Semesters 28 Semester π1 π2 Π σ π1- π2 |Z| Zα P-value Result Spring 2010 - Summer 2010 0.00 0.07 0.0235 0.0044 14.5203 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Summer 2010 - Summer 2011 0.07 0.23 0.1582 0.0113 14.3211 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Spring 2011 0.29 0.32 0.3065 0.0103 3.5117 1.645 < 0.001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Summer 2011 0.29 0.23 0.2645 0.0114 5.3643 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Fall 2010 - Fall 2011 0.29 0.28 0.2856 0.0099 0.4479 1.645 0.3264 P > 0.05 Spring 2011 - Summer 2011 0.32 0.23 0.2881 0.0115 8.4099 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Spring 2011 - Fall 2011 0.32 0.28 0.3030 0.0099 4.0899 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 Summer 2011 - Fall 2011 0.23 0.28 0.2636 0.0111 5.1051 1.645 < 0.0001 P < 0.05 6/10/2012
  • 29. 29 6/10/2012
  • 30. Discussion 30  In general, course, sections, and instructors using Sakai are not monitored.  This simple procedure has the following advantages:  Provide information about the proportion of instructors, courses, and sections using Sakai.  It helps to monitor the implementation process.  It creates the database for marketing programs.  It might be used to evaluate success at the college and at university level. 6/10/2012
  • 31. Conclusions 31 There was significant increase in their proportions of courses, sections, and instructors from 2010 to 2011 in the majority of the colleges. There was significant increase in their proportions of courses, sections, and instructors per semester. We have identified the colleges that need more our attention, and we are targeting them with a marketing program. Monitoring Sakai usage is important during the implementation and evaluation of the overall success at the college and university level. 6/10/2012