LMS Transitions
1 like753 views
The document summarizes Cuyahoga Community College's process for transitioning to a new Learning Management System (LMS). A taskforce with representatives from various campus groups was formed to lead a culturally inclusive and transparent review. The taskforce gathered input through surveys, focus groups, and continuous feedback. Tools like a needs analysis rubric and scorecard were used to evaluate vendors. The taskforce broke the large project into short sprints and recognized members' work through digital badges. After a thorough process, the taskforce recommended a new LMS to the college community.
LMS Transitions
- 1. LMS TRANSITIONS LESSONS FROM A CULTURALLY INCLUSIVE AND TRANSPARENT CHANGE EFFORT
- 2. ABOUT CUYAHOGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE • Largest community college in Ohio • 52,000 students annually • 4 campuses, 1 university center, multiple satellite sites • Large online presence, 30% of FTE comes from online and blended/hybrid courses
- 3. INTERCONNECTED ED TECH NEEDS • LMS • Outcomes assessment • ePortfolios • Alternative transcripts • Alternative credentials • Digital badges • Open Educational Resources (OER) • Competency-based education • Provider partnerships • Social learning • Integration • Legacy system transitions • Soft skills
- 4. POLL QUESTION • What primary needs do you feel are not being met by your current LMS and other integrated edtech systems? (Pick your top 2.) • a) Mobile delivery • b) Video streaming • c) Social learning tools • d) Modularization, digital badging, microcredentials • e) ePortfolios • f) Modern user interface and/or functionality
- 5. CONSIDERATIONS • Large-scale project in strong shared governance structure • College had Blackboard for 18 years • Different cultures at each of the 4 campuses • Many constituent groups; many different perspectives • Lots of change going on simultaneously • Online & educational technology structures & processes are “old school”
- 6. LMS OVERVIEW VIDEO • Explains justification for the LMS Review • Was distributed via Adobe Presenter • Same information was posted on blog, distributed via email, printed posters and flyers, and presented at College-wide events & faculty senate meetings
- 7. COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY • All information posted online • Demos from vendors • Blog has 733 followers (mostly faculty, some students)
- 8. COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY • Meeting agendas and notes • Attendance records for all Taskforce members • Results from college-wide surveys • Presentations conducted in Taskforce workshops and sessions
- 9. THE TASKFORCE • Short-term group • 10 full-time faculty (all campuses); 1 adjunct; several staff were also adjunct instructors • Staff and administration from eLearning and Innovation, IT, procurement, legal, accessibility services, Centers for Learning Excellence, student affairs, students • Formalized the expectations for what Taskforce membership entailed
- 10. THE TASKFORCE DEFINING EXPECTATIONS FOR FACULTY
- 11. THE TASKFORCE EXPECTATIONS FOR STAFF & ADMINISTRATION
- 13. COMMUNICATION SHARED OWNERSHIP OF THE MESSAGE
- 14. POLL QUESTION What primary methods do you use to communicate within your college? (Pick top 2.) A. Email B. Portal and/or Intranet C. Newsletters (physical or virtual) D.Paper (flyers, posters, etc.) E. Video updates F. Faculty meetings and/or presentations
- 15. COMMUNICATION • Faculty Communication Work Group led faculty outreach • Multiple means of outreach: video, posters, flyers, emails, online newsletters, postings in portal
- 16. COMMUNICATION We kept track of all communications on a “Traffic Report” Over 75 communications went out over the length of the Taskforce involvement
- 17. SURVEYS, FOCUS GROUPS & INTERVIEWS OH MY! GETTING FEEDBACK IS JUST LIKE VOTING: DO IT EARLY AND OFTEN
- 18. SURVEYS & FOCUS GROUPS • College-wide • Separate surveys for faculty, staff and administration, and students • Focus groups for each of those populations at each of the campuses • Interviews with key stakeholders
- 19. ONLINE CONTINUOUS FEEDBACK FORM
- 20. TOOLS NEEDS ANALYSIS, RUBRIC, AND SCORECARD PROCESS
- 21. TOOLS USED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS 1. Needs Analysis 2. Rubric 3. Scorecard 4. Consensus Tool
- 22. POLL QUESTION What tools do you use when making committee or Taskforce decisions? (Pick top 2.) A. None – general discussion B. Formal voting C. Codified analysis tool (i.e. rubrics, surveys, etc.) D.Consensus tool E. Other specific internal process
- 23. RUBRIC One tool in the process: Assessments Assignments Assignment Submission Calendar Integration Communication, Collaboration Content Gradebook Social Tools General User Site Maintenance Network Support, Training
- 24. SCORECARD Rubric categories corresponded to the scorecard (necessary for RFP) Scorecard pre- discussion matched results of rubric Consensus decision process
- 25. CONSENSUS Codified way of making a decision Clarified what decision was being made Enabled individuals to clarify what their stance was on it Provided opportunity for rich discussion Used in 3 places: Who to send the RFP to (decision changed) Downselect (from 5-3) Final decision
- 26. TASKFORCE OPERATIONS SHORT DEADLINES, SHARED OWNERSHIP, AND CELEBRATION OF WINS
- 27. SPRINTS • Short-term 2 week assignments • Intense work over a short period of time • Work Group leads determined what needed to be done, assigned tasks • Report outs every 2 weeks • Adjusted as we went
- 28. DIGITAL BADGES & RECOGNITION • At biweekly meetings, digital badges were rewarded based on recommendations from Work Group Leads • Physical certificates with the badges were also awarded
- 29. PUTTING A BOW ON IT HIGHLIGHTING THE WORK OF THE TASKFORCE
- 31. COLLEGE-WIDE ANNOUNCEMENTS LMS Review Overview Video
- 32. LINGERING CONCERNS • Self-hosted • SaaS versus on-site • To Ultra or Not to Ultra, that is the question
Editor's Notes
- #2: Session Description: Working effectively on a change initiative in a strong shared governance environment requires successful collaboration with faculty leaders. This presentation will focus on the process of an LMS Review that was conducted at Cuyahoga Community College, with a College-wide Taskforce of full-time and adjunct faculty, administrative leadership and representatives from all stakeholder groups. The project management style of distributed ownership and short-term sprints led to genuine buy-in from all parties, with a successful conclusion. The LMS Review was purposefully transparent, with all components posted publicly on a blog including meeting minutes, needs analysis, evaluation of systems, and the internal education process for the group regarding LMS trends. The project incorporated educational opportunities and incentives internally, with the use of digital badging and recognition of exemplary work throughout the process.
- #4: Many different needs within the college Wanted to avoid duplications of systems if possible Wanted to think ahead for “room to grow,” even within the confines of an LMS Review
- #6: Reflecting on this change process, there were some major elements to it, what we’ll be discussing today Context – providing overview Commitment to transparency The Taskforce – who was involved, what the expectations were Timelines – and flexibility of timelines Communication streams Opportunities for input Tools Taskforce Operations – how we ran the project with Sprints, digital badges, etc. “Put a Bow On It” – pomp and circumstance – ending the project Lingering concerns
- #15: In terms of “getting the word out”
- #20: Feedback form was there throughout Most faculty did not use it (40) It was available for input and it was another avenue where faculty and staff could participate