Ken Udas (KU): Before we start the interview, I would like to get a better handle on how eLearning is positioned within UCLA. How much eLearning does UCLA engage in and is eLearning an important part of UCLA's strategic planning?
Ruth Sabean (RS): That depends on how you define eLearning. I think of eLearning relatively broadly. For example, UCLA uses electronic tools throughout instruction, in a manner determined by the individual instructor of each course. The extent of eLearning varies from an enrichment strategy through to being a primary part of the course delivery. Two UCLA academic units provide online master's degrees - an M.S.N. in Nursing Administration and an M.S. in Engineering. University Extension provides an extensive number of online courses in continuing education. But, like many campuses that offer primarily a residential experience, there is a lot of blending of technologies to enhance learning that is primarily classroom-based.
KU: We all know that changing learning-management systems is not a trivial matter. There is risk and cost associated with deployment, but also with course-material migration, faculty development, and training for helpdesk staff, application administrators, and learners. What motivated you to evaluate and change UCLA's learning-management system?
RS: In 2002, UCLA's Faculty Committee on Educational Technology (FCET) expressed concern over the proliferation of “course-management system” solutions in departments, divisions, and schools that required separate logins and made sharing of expertise, materials, new tools, and innovation difficult if not impossible across the campus. After several years of cross-campus collaborative efforts to better link the variety of services, UCLA decided to join the Sakai Educational Partners Program in order to support the Sakai vision and to experiment with open-source solutions and the concept of a common solution on which UCLA might converge. The FCET thought it was important for UCLA to join the national community in order to work collaboratively with others to build tools, as well as to support the vision of a higher-education-defined solution that would support both teaching and research collaboration.
KU: What evaluation and selection methods did you use and why did you select those methods?
RS: The FCET recommended that the common solution be open source. This was endorsed by the IT Planning Board and by CCLE Technical and Functional Sponsor Groups. The Assessment Taskforce evaluated solutions that met UCLA's requirements and selected Moodle and Sakai to be evaluated in greater depth based on the functional and technical requirements.
Our methodology included doing a fair amount of desktop research to determine what options were available. We referred to Web sites, reports, white papers, and other secondary sources to identify potential systems. As there are dozens of open-source learning management environments, we made a quick cut based on factors such as project viability and maturity; activity within the community; the nature of the technology stack (for example, is the stack open source and are the dependencies open source, is the programming language too obscure?). We were also interested in knowing whether other large-scale production deployments were in existence, the strength and maturity of the development and support community, and if there was adequate support and documentation in English.
Based on this type of general analysis we were able to reduce the field to eight potential systems. We then looked at each system in terms of our meta-criteria and selected Sakai and Moodle as the two solutions we needed to assess in detail. As part of the assessment process, we interviewed institutions that had experience with Sakai and Moodle.
KU: What decision was made?
RS: We selected Moodle. You can find more information about the decision at http://www.oit.ucla.edu/ccle .It is important to note that this decision had two parts. The second was to remain engaged with the higher education community and the Sakai Foundation in order to work on interoperability of Moodle, Sakai, and other CMS/CLE solutions.
KU: What are the relevant dates (start of the selection process, date of selection, projected deployment)?
RS: This is difficult to pin down because the process has been fairly long, starting with the statement of vision in 2002. The latest round of work (by the functional and technical sponsors) started in February 2006 and produced a report in June 2006 that is available on the Web site. The Assessment Taskforce started in July 2006 and delivered their report to the FCET in October 2006. An alpha service will be available for experimentation and testing by early adopters in April 2007, when our spring quarter begins. The speed of implementation will depend on the flow of funds to support this new common service.
KU: Which parts of UCLA does this decision affect (a department, college, the whole university)?
RS: This service will be offered as an opt-in service to faculty and students. Departments, divisions, and schools will make their own choices based on how well the CCLE meets their requirements. We also anticipate that faculty will make individual choices to use some or most of the service features, such as for collaboration. Because faculty will continue to receive their support locally, we will be encouraging academic units to make collective decisions on whether and how extensively to use the CCLE service to ensure that faculty continue to find the support they need easily and that local IT staff do not end up trying to support multiple systems.
- 瀏覽次數：1265
