Available under Creative Commons-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Download for free at http://cnx.org/contents/f6522dce-7e2b-47ac-8c82-8e2b72973784@7.2
Hi Patrick, I think I touched on some of this in my response to your comment in the other section.
Regarding the assessment of Moodle - just a couple of observations.
- The FCET did not do an architecture assessment. Although some members might have that skill set, most of the faculty on that committee do not. If you're interested in seeing the assessment task force report, I'd be happy to share it with you. Part of that assessment involved discussions with institutions with similar scale of operations who also seemed to be effectively working on these issues. We also spent quite a bit of time talking with people who had chosen the Sakai route to understand what we might be missing.
- Our sense, and I guess time will prove whether we're right, is that Moodle seemed to be implementing standards fairly rapidly and more consistent with the definitions than Sakai at the time we compared them. So even though there were no philosophical statements being made about that, in practice there did seem to be attention being paid in terms of the work being produced.
- It was also our sense that the Moodle community was interested in the practical aspects of interoperability perhaps because so many campuses run Moodle AND something else, even though there was not a lot of discussion of that as a goal.
- We did observe even the 6 months or so that we were working on these choices that Moodle seemed to be learning faster from Sakai than the reserve. Hard to say if that was simply the maturity of the community or the faster pace of development because of various factors, or just that key requirements spread rapidly.
Cheers, Ruth
- 瀏覽次數：1258
